DesMoinesRegister.com | Politics

OK, One Last Point:

What about this?

Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

Who was leading the charge to capture Bin Laden? It was not Afghans. It was the British SAS. And not without American support -- support, indeed, of the first water.

The SAS was fighting alongside Delta Force, the US army's special forces, and though the Brits did not think that the Yanks were quite their equal, our men were impressed by their men. Delta Force is not the same as the SAS. Much larger, its nearest British equivalent would be the SAS, merged with 3 (commando) brigade and 16 (air assault) brigade. As a result of Afghanistan, there are now pressures in the Pentagon to create an inner-core special force on British lines. Donald Rumsfeld's enthusiasm for the SAS goes beyond tributes at press conferences; he wants one of his own.

Handing the SAS the responsibility for this is the farthest thing from irresponsible. They are, I think it does no disservice to our soldiers to say, among the very best in the world.

Yet, allowing for the fact that Kerry has misrepresented the situation, there is an honest complaint to be made here. Once it had trapped Bin Laden, the military was indeed set aside in favor of CIA operations.

There followed hours of fiffing and faffing, while gold coins were helicoptered in, to encourage the Northern Alliance. The USA is the greatest military power in the history of the planet, spending well over $300 billion a year on defence, yet everything was paralysed because it would not allow its fighting men to fight.

It's hard to say that Kerry has a point, since he has run entirely on the platform of outsourcing all operations: "sharing the burden," as he likes to call it. Still, I sympathize with the fighting forces. They should have been allowed their kill. They were ready to pay any cost.

DRUDGE REPORT 2004�

The Debate:

Grim's Hall does not receive television, and CSPAN.com is lagged up. I will have to watch the debate tomorrow, though I have had a chance to see the transcript and various blog reactions (Instapundit and Allah have links to quite a few of those, both left and right).

My impression, having read a bunch of these, is that only the hardcore on either side think their boy won the day. Indeed, being ready to say "My candidate won," appears to be the very definition of a blinkered, blinders-wearing partisan (except for Kaus, whose claim to be a Kerry supporter is purely rhetorical). The consensus among bloggers is that it was a draw, with no movement to be expected on either side.

The main complaint against Kerry seems to be that he was too defensive ("I have a single plan for Iraq!" Sure, whatever: nice manicure, by the way); the main complaint against Bush seems to be that he didn't attack ("Every time Kerry opened his mouth, conservatives thought of the eight different responses and attacks that they wanted to see, and Bush mostly didn't use them." That's because the campaigns stuck to scripted responses to likely questions, focus-group tested to be sure they wouldn't offend.)

Having read the transcript, I have to say that's not surprising. I usually prefer to read speeches instead of hearing them, as it makes it easier to focus on the merits of what's being said rather than the merits of how it's being said. The transcript demonstrates that Bush was his usual self, clear about what he means in spite of his halting and having to rethink mid-sentence. Kerry's sentences were more polished, which is what everyone expects. In other words, the candidates appear to have played to type. There were few surprises, and I doubt many minds will be changed.

Still, there is some surprise being registered in the blogosphere. Out of kindness to the bloggers involved, I won't link to their posts because I'm going to be a little blunt, and I don't want anyone feeling singled-out.

Some are expressing shock that Kerry advocated giving nuclear fuel to Iran as a way of stopping their bomb program. These people haven't been listening, as Kerry's been saying that all summer. (Indeed, it was the core of the Clinton plan to stop North Korea's nuclear program, and it's likely to be just as successful). The plan is foolish in the extreme, but it isn't new.

Similarly, some have said that Kerry's idea of a "global test" was shocking. I'm not sure why that would be ("decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them..."), but again, it's not new. If you're overwhelmed by the idea that Kerry is an internationalist, who believes that the US should act in accord with the international consensus as to what is right-action, you've not been paying attention.

The difference lies between those who feel that "declaring the causes" is enough, and those who feel that they must convince people of the rightness of the cause. Kerry is, and has always been, in the latter camp.

Overall, though, there is nothing in the transcript that should move a single vote already assigned. For those who have not been watching the campaign, it was a clear presentation of the kind of man each candidate is, and his stance on the issues of the day.

For that, at least, both men deserve a measure of praise.

Scotsman.com News - Latest News - No Knock-Out Punch in Bush-Kerry Head-to-Head

The Final Word:

From the Scotsman, which is as famously sober as its namesake is not:

No Knock-Out Punch in Bush-Kerry Head-to-Head

George Bush and John Kerry locked horns on live television today in the first face-to-face debate of the presidential election campaign.

The President and his Democratic challenger set out their different strategies on how to prevail in Iraq and win the war on terrorism.

But neither managed to deliver a knock-out punch during the 90-minute war of words at Miami University in Florida.

Yeah, that seems about right to me. Of course, as I said, I have only read the arguments -- maybe something in the video will change my mind. See you tomorrow.

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today

That's Gotta Be A Mistranslation:

From the Best of the Web:

The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, 'The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies.'

That's French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin being interviewed. Even I can't believe he meant to say that the way it ended up in the US press. I pulled up Le Figaro and read through several recent articles on the hostages, and didn't find anything quite like that, so I wonder what the quote really was.

Debate

Debate Feed:

I've added to the right sidebar a debate feed. It's being run by Blogs for Bush, I gather; at any rate, they're the ones who asked me to put it there. I believe the notion is to give them a platform to highlight things about the debate they'd like you to know.

It's temporary -- I'll take it down after the debates, and perhaps after the first debate, depending on reader comments. Let me know if you like it or hate it. If it's useful to you, and doesn't slow down the site too much, I may leave it up through the other two debates as well.

John Derbyshire's September Diary on National Review Online

No-Go Areas... in France:

John Derbyshire points this out today:

In Le Figaro daily dated Feb 1, 2002, Lucienne Bui Trong, a criminologist working for the French government's Renseignements Generaux (General Intelligence -- a mix of FBI and secret service), complains that the survey system she had created for accurately denumbering the Muslim no-go zones was dismantled by the government. She wrote: 'From 106 hot points in 1991, we went to 818 sensitive areas in 1999. That's for the whole country. These data were not politically correct.' Since she comes from a Vietnamese background, Ms. Bui Trong cannot be suspected of racism, of course, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to start this survey in the first place.

The term she uses, 'sensitive area,' is the PC euphemism for these places where anything representing a Western institution (post office truck, firemen, even mail order delivery firms, and of course cops) is routinely ambushed with Molotov cocktails, and where war weapons imported from the Muslim part of Yugoslavia are routinely found.
The number 818 is from 2002. I'd go out on a limb and venture that it hasn't decreased in two years.

Mr. Derbyshire has several other interesting observations in this month's diary. Be sure to skip down to the one on British childhood games, even if you don't read the others.

My Way News

Baghdad:

The heart of the insurgency may be al-Anbar, but the real fighting is for Baghdad. The city is an important symbol, in much the same way that control of Paris symbolizes control of France.

Insurgents cannot hope to control Baghdad, so they try to show that the Iraqi government can't control it either. Today's attack at a sewage treatment plant did nothing to disrupt the function of the plant, but that is cold comfort to the families of thirty five children killed by car bombs.

The insurgents can't afford photographs of American soldiers passing out candy to smiling children, but the only way they can stop it is with photographs of American soldiers caring for children ripped open by the insurgents' bombs, and US helicopters rushing them to the hospital. This is the fullness of their power: they can kill children to protest that the US is cleaning up Baghdad's sewage.

One would think the monstrosity of these attacks would speak for itself, but it does not. The AP report shows only too clearly the moral blindness afflicting so many:

The day of violence across Iraq, including insurgent attacks and U.S. airstrikes in Fallujah, left a total of 46 people dead and 208 wounded.

There we are then: the insurgents and the United States are equally the enemies of peaceful Iraqis. An insurgent attack on a sewage treatment plant designed to slaughter unarmed people en masse ought, of course, to be lumped in with an airstrike on a terrorist safehouse that was packed so full of ordinance that secondary explosions continued for hours.

Naturally.

GeorgeWBush.com :: Kerry's Flip Flop Olympics

At Least It Ain't Windsurfing:

"The John Kerry Flip-Flop Olympics!" This one gets a little hard around Round Four, when they get to the Iraq positions. Stick it out, though, for a chance to see your score evaluated by surprise last-round judges.

Instapundit.com

Trading in Rumor:

The Sage of Knoxville is irritated:

Best bit, from producer Linda Karas: "The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It’s a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail."

And people accuse bloggers of trading in rumor?

That's hardly the worst example from this week. Compare to the Washington Post's "CIA Pessmistic on Iraq." Who speaks for the CIA? Why, 'one former intelligence officer who maintains contact...'

Later, another unnamed source is allowed to speak for the CIA, the State Department and the military, saying that all of them are opposed to Bush. Really? CDRUSCENTCOM Abazaid didn't seem to be.

But of course, he was on the record. The front page news was the article about the rumors.

Belmont Club

So What About the Numbers?

The Belmont Club looks at the New York Times' recent article on the insurgency, which asserts that attacks are growing in frequency and are not confined to the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad.

Their numbers do say that's true, says Wretchard... but then compiles a table from the Times' own numbers that show that 88% of the attacks cited were confined in just that way. Of Iraq's 18 provinces, six (the Sunni Triangle area) comprise that 88%. Rounding the numbers for clarity, that is to say that nearly 90% of attacks are happening in just one third of Iraq.

Another six provinces -- a third of Iraq -- have attack frequencies below one attack per one hundred thousand people. Two more have attack frequencies under two per one hundred thousand people; the remainder, under ten per one hundred thousand people. One-third of Iraq is quite hot; two-thirds of Iraq are basically secure, although terrorists do manage to set off the occasional grenade or stage the occasional kidnapping.

Wretchard concludes:

So everything checks out just as the New York Times article reported it. All the facts are individually true, but Prime Minister Allawie's assertion that most provinces are "completely safe" and that security prospects are bright are also supported by those same facts. Such is the fog of war.

Let me add this: the Times is participating in mythologizing of the guerrillas. Creating a mythology of strength and prowess is always a central aim in any insurgency:

The guerrilla relies in very large part on the fog of war to present an illusion of power. Orwell wrote that, "Power-worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue." The guerrilla desperately needs people to believe in his power, and that his strength will grow forever, that his success is inevitable.

In three of the provinces -- a sixth of Iraq -- the guerrillas only managed either one or two attacks of any kind in the last month, despite the advantages that go with being a guerrilla: the ability to choose the place and time of any attack, and the ability to target unarmed civilians and still call it a "victory." That means you can pick a time and a place when neither soldiers or policemen are around, and resistance to you will be nonexistent. Even so, there are provinces where these guerrillas the Times paints as all-powerful managed only one attack in a month.

By saying that this means that 'not a single province was unaffected,' the Times is not saying something untrue; technically a single attack is an effect. But by painting those provinces with the same brush as it does al Anbar province, it gives the guerrillas the illusion of a far greater power than they possess.

The Times, in other words, is playing the enemy's game. One can only assume that this is out of ignorance, the kind of ignorance that has permeated the journalistic community's reporting on this war. I don't believe it is disloyalty, as some have suggested. Regardless, it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

What was wanted were facts for fighters. What we have gotten is an ode to the guerrillas: "sweeping" "surging" warriors overwhelming security efforts. Out of its apparent lack of understanding, the Times is -- to borrow another of Orwell's phrases -- objectively supporting the enemy. It is doing their information operations for them, far more effectively than they could do it themselves.

That is not to say that the Times is in any way disloyal. It is only to say that they have been fooled. The guerrillas focus on weaving a mystique through violence and terror; and the Times has bought it, hook and sinker.

MEMRI: Latest News

Shake:

Would you be willing to shake a Jew's hand? From Allah.

Diplomacy

Diplomacy and Iraq:

An ongoing criticism of President Bush is that he has not done enough to use diplomacy to resolve the Iraq situation. Indeed, Kerry just spoke to the matter:

[A]s president [Kerry said] he would immediately convene a summit of all European and Arab heads of state "to figure out how together we're going to assume the burdens" of Iraq and proposing that another country could provide a base for training Iraqi security forces.

Kerry, taking questions from an invitation-only audience of Wisconsin voters, said "cutting and running" in Iraq would never be an option if he is commander in chief.

He said his proposed summit also would include searching for common ground to solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and cut off Arab support for terrorist groups.

I include the last two paragraphs in order to be fair to the candidate. That is what he says he will do: not cut and run, solve the Israeli situation, prevent Iran from developing nukes, and cause Arabs to cease supporting terrorist groups. To which I say: all of that is wonderful if any of it is true. I can't quite imagine how he expects to achieve any of it, however, given previous statements (e.g., the plan to give Iran nuclear fuel doesn't really seem likely to "prevent," but rather to aid, the development of nuclear weapons; the way to "solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis" is a wonder that has eluded the best minds of three generations; and the question of cutting off Arab support for terrorists is another).

Having let him have his say, however, let us examine his one concrete proposal: a summit on "how together we're going to assume the burdens." I don't think it's unfair to say that this translates properly as, "how you people are going to assume some of the burdens you've been letting us carry for you."

Some thoughts on the topic have already returned from France and Germany, who said the US election would not change their policy:

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

...

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

Now, Kerry seems to be talking himself into pursuing less than what NATO has already agreed to do: to train people outside of Iraq, when NATO has already said they will train people inside of Iraq. That is, though, a minor quibble.

The major objection is the notion of a summit. Paris has already stated their terms:

France said Monday that it would take part in a proposed international conference on Iraq only if the agenda included a possible U.S. troop withdrawal, thus complicating the planning for a meeting that has drawn mixed reactions.

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq's insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept.

France is unwilling to participate in a summit of allies seeking victory in Iraq.

France is only willing to participate in negotiating, not as an ally but as a "neutral," a US surrender to the insurgency.

The International Herald Tribune says that this "would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept." It does not seem able to say whether or not it would be difficult for a Kerry administration to accept.

I agree, on both points. However, I note that the French position is similiar to Kerry's on one other point: both of them have a "tense" relationship with Allawi and his government. Kerry openly craves French approval, and has adopted the French worldview on this and other points. Why should we not think he might adopt their plan for a negotiated surrender, under the vibrant but faithless heading of "Peace process"?

Kerry has chided the American government for failing to gain "the support of our allies." But the French are not our allies. They themselves have said so. We would do well not to forget.

Mudville Gazette

Greyhawk in Iraq:

MilBlog founder Greyhawk has his first report from Iraq. It is entitled "Eyes of the Undefeated."

Downer unfit for job, says Latham - Election 2004 - www.smh.com.au

Alexander Downer: The Worst Public Speaker In The World

Sometimes you really screw up:

The Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, was unfit to hold his job after saying Indonesia could make pre-emptive strikes at Australia, Opposition Leader Mark Latham said today.

His comments come after Mr Downer was asked on Darwin radio if he would expect another country to take pre-emptive action on Australian soil. Mr Downer said: "Absolutely, by the way, absolutely."

"If the Indonesians rang us up and said, 'there's a terrorist group in the Kimberleys who are planning to launch an attack on Kupang', and we said, 'well we don't really care; that's your problem, pal and we're not going to do anything about it', and they sent an F-16 over and bombed the terrorist group, you could understand that," Mr Downer added.

I love that this was on "Darwin radio."

Now, honestly, the Australian government has been our finest friend in the GWOT. They, and the UK, have been unfailing in their support. The Howard government, of which Downer is a member, is far more likely to support the U.S. than the Labor opposition, which has run on cutting back cooperation with America.

All the same, I have to say, Downer is a consistently lousy diplomat.

Last week, all this "pre-emptive strike" business arose after PM Howard stated that he was going to form "flying squads" to address terrorist groups in the region. He explained that he was moving to a pre-emptive strike model, following the Jakarta bombing of the Aussie embassy.

Downer, challenged by Malaysia and Indonesia to explain this position, managed to refine his boss' statement into a pure hypothetical -- in fact, he said, it was just campaign rhetoric:

But imagine a situation, it's not likely to be Indonesia or a country which has a strong counter-terrorism capability, but a failed state in the South Pacific, as the Solomons once was and is not now, and a situation where a terrorist was about to attack and the country involved either didn't want to or in their case couldn't do anything to stop it, we would have to go and do it ourselves.... We're talking about a situation where, and it's a hypothetical situation, where somebody would not stop a terrorist attack on Australia, someone refused to stop a terrorist attack on Australia, wherever it might be in the world – not in Indonesia, but anywhere in the world, and I can assure you this Government would stop it if we knew it was going to happen.

Isn't this the same Mr. Downer who said that his department "never" issued hypothetical statements about such things? I seem to remember he said that just lately. I believe it was in regard to the issue raised in this article, "Aussies Not Cowards: MOFA"

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) yesterday said that it never called Australians "moral cowards" but had urged the Australian government to be even-handed in dealing with relations between Taiwan and China....

Downer, during a visit to Beijing last month, spoke of a new strategic partnership between Australia and China extending beyond commercial interests and into the political sphere. Downer said Australia would not necessarily side with the US against China in support of Taiwan if hostilities broke out.

When our own Secretary of State pointed out that Australia had a treaty obligation to do just that, Mr. Downer replied that they didn't do hypotheticals -- except, it seems, when they do.

John Howard had to spurn his own FM in public over that remark, and now Mr. Downer is trying to "help" again. I can only hope that Howard survives the elections, and that he immediately dispenses with this particularly inept diplomat.

International News Article | Reuters.com

Marines In the Deepest Desert:

Amid the tallest dunes on earth, the new Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorist Initiative is hunting the GSPC, "Algeria's last powerful rebel force."

JunkYardBlog: September 19, 2004 - September 25, 2004 Archives

Sovay, This Is For You:

From JunkYardBlog, Japanese fan-dancing droids.

Kerry's Unlikely Detractors (washingtonpost.com)

"It is NOT Enough"

Colbert I. King has a piece in today's Washington Post that is entitled "Kerry's Unlikely Detractors." Some excerpts:

[In a previous article] I had taken to task the authors of the blistering anti-Kerry bestseller "Unfit for Command" for giving readers an unbalanced view of Kerry's service in Vietnam, and for not revealing their own connections with the Bush campaign and the sources of their financial support. The column also criticized "Unfit for Command" for smearing Kerry, a decorated former naval officer, as disloyal because of his antiwar activities. Writing as a former Army officer, I concluded: "Speaking for myself, it is enough that he served."

A number of readers agreed with that conclusion. Many more, however, most of them angry veterans, did not. Most striking was the fact that those who identified themselves seemed to span the political spectrum, with one even describing himself as a Howard Dean Democrat.

Two weeks later, another e-mail arrived on the same topic. It was from a Howard University classmate, a friend of 47 years, former assistant secretary of the Air Force Rodney Coleman. A Democrat, Coleman has local roots, having worked for the D.C. Council and later the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corp.

Bill Clinton appointed Coleman to the Pentagon post, in which he served from 1994 to 1998....

Coleman, who served in Vietnam for 13 months in 1971-72, wrote that he found disheartening the protracted mudslinging between Bush and Kerry and their respective camps about military records. But the favorable conclusion I drew about Kerry's service was, he stated, "with all due respect, not mine!"

"Some of those 58,000 who died [in Vietnam] were at DaNang with me, and some were under my command, in the 366th Air Force engineering squadron," Coleman wrote.

Then he got to the heart of the matter.

"I vividly recall Kerry's antiwar testimony in April 1971. I was a White House fellow at the time, on a leave of absence from active duty, as were five of the 17 fellows selected. Two of them had Vietnam experience with Silver and Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts awarded for their heroism. In early April 1971, I volunteered to go to Vietnam after my year as a White House fellow. I could have very easily taken steps to forgo a tour in 'Nam, but as an Air Force captain committed to the ideals of the oath of office I took, Vietnam was the only game in town."

The oath of office was a serious matter for products of Howard's ROTC programs. I know. I was commissioned in the Army; Coleman joined the Air Force. Unlike some college campuses, Howard's ROTC programs were a source of pride, having produced, according to the school, more African American general officers than any other university in the country.

"When Kerry made those critical statements of the war," Coleman wrote, "my parents, God bless them, went ballistic about their son going in harm's way. My military colleagues in the fellows program who had been there and were shot up were incensed that a so-called military man would engage in such insubordinate actions. At the time Kerry made those unfortunate remarks, America had POWs and MIAs, among them my friend, Colonel Fred Cherry, the longest-held black POW of the Vietnam War. How could a true American fighting man throw away his medals, while thousands he fought alongside of were in the midst of another example of man's inhumanity to man?"

Coleman wishes to vote against Bush this year, but he says he cannot make up his mind. "Kerry still hasn't satisfied me and many others... It's September and I'm still conflicted. Speaking for myself, it is NOT enough that he served!"

Yahoo! Mail - grimbeornr@yahoo.com

A Celebration Is In Order:

Hail the Hall!

One of our own is coming home. JarHeadDad, faithful commenter and fellow Georgian, sends:

[Da Grunt] called on Wed night (Thur morning 0200) and was waiting on a C-130 to fly him and the boys to Kuwait! He's out of it and in one piece.

And we'd best be keeping him and his compadres away from John Kerry for awhile! They are not real fond of him right now considering he threw them under the bus and they spent their last week fighting like hell because, and I quote, "The a**hole has let these %^&$* believe they can win and we're paying the price! Half of everything we worked so hard to do has gone to s**t!". I don't believe Kerry will get the Marine vote! If the new guys survive his rhetoric. Everyone over there will sure feel better when November comes! BTW, there was a huge absentee vote before the new guys went over. Enough politics but I thought y'all should know what the real story about the "quagmire" is and who is getting our boys killed again. Leopard never changes his spots! (In case you didn't notice, I'm really pissed at the crap spewed out this week and so is my son who had to pay a price for it!)

Anyhoo, 2/2 is cooling their heels in Kuwait. Janice and I will pop a bottle of bubbly as soon as I get off the computer!

Let me be the first to thank Da Grunt for his long service, and suffering in the defense of the Republic. And, let me be the first to say to JHD: we've all been holding our breath with you. Give the boy our very best, and tell him he's always welcome here.

And not just in the virtual hall. If he's ever out my way, be sure to let me know.

BLACKFIVE: "That's my president, hooah!"

Morale Is To Physical As Three Is To One:

Via BlackFive, an object lesson in how to be Commander in Chief.

New York Post Online Edition: postopinion

Some Call It Treason:

Another broadside from Ralph Peters:

IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.
We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.

In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.

Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.

Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?

And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning?

Has he seen the situation with his own eyes? I'll gladly tell him how to get there. I'll even be his guide. And he can smell what remains of Saddam's mass graves — with new ones still being discovered. He can taste the joy of freedom among the Kurds. He can see the bustling commerce throughout the country — despite the violence that alone makes headlines.

Above all, he could see the magnificent performance of our troops, their dedication and professionalism. And their humanity, their goodness.

But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy.

Peters, an analyst Kevin Drum called "military analyst generally respected by both left and right," has a point. I refuse to call it treason: a man has the right to speak his mind, and if this what Kerry believes, he's got every right to say it. Of course, so does Mr. Peters.

UPDATE: And so does InstaPundit, who also links to the Peters piece at the end of a long post about other propaganda coming from the Kerry camp. InstaPundit cites "a pattern of behavior," including the recent (unapologized-for) remarks to the Australians by the Kerrys, the constant slurs against our real allies ("the coalition of the bribed and coerced"; the 'fake coalition'), and now the remarks against PM Allawi by a campaign that couldn't even be bothered to meet with him or attend his address to Congress.

They did find time to describe him as a puppet: "'[Y]ou can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips,' said Joe Lockhart." That, once again, is precisely the line being used by the enemy, except that they describe him as a CIA puppet rather than Bush's. Both intend to discredit him, and with him the provisional government. I have seen little evidence that Allawi is anyone's puppet -- to me he looks like an operator who realizes that he needs US support, and is trying to earn it. That means he is the one pulling the strings -- the heartstrings.

Yet both the enemy, and the Kerry camp, try to discredit him by saying he is the tool of the administration. Surely they have different reasons. The enemy wishes to destroy the Iraqi government; the Kerry camp has already written it off. They are willing to participate in its destabilization and destruction, in order to achieve political victory at home. On this point they have sided with the enemy in Iraq: not because they want the enemy to win, but because they expect to achieve their own political goals through the same events.

Yes, these are harsh words. They are entirely deserved. The success of the Iraqi transition depends in part on the provisional government's survival. A great number of American lives are at risk today, defending that hope. Kerry and his camp are intentionally undermining it for political gain. For that they deserve condemnation.

It is not treason to say what you believe to be true.

[H]e made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

It is easy to say where they are not.