Wednesday, November 03, 2004
4:30 a.m. EST Networks Afraid to Call Election After Kerry Refuses to Concede
Labels: George W. Bush, John Kerry
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Was this OBL's Message: U.S. Deserves Imminent WMD Attack?
Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor of Global Information Service, argues in Monday's Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that Osama bin Laden's main audience in his recent speech was the Arab world, not Americans, and that his main message was the heralding and defense of a mass-killing spectacular strike against the United States.
Bodansky takes bin Laden's message to be an anticipatory moral defense:
A note from the Editor reports that GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs sources within the Islamist movements in the Balkans all report, on October 31, 2004, an upsurge in the rumors of a planned nuclear strike by Islamists on one or more U.S. targets. The note adds that Bosnian groups linked to the radical Islamist party SDA were active in supporting the terrorists who carried out the attacks on September 11 in the United States and in March 2004 in Madrid.
Bodansky concludes that taken together, these warnings have created great expectations among those faithful to the Islamic jihadist movement and that the leadership is not likely to ignore or fail to fulfill these expectations.
[Ed. In the full text of the speech posted on Aljazeera.Net, there is a grisly attempt by bin Laden to lay the blame for 9/11 on the victims. He claims to discern in their gestures before the collapse of the towers this message: "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the week..." Bin Laden then sees the victims imploring living Americans to hold their leaders to account, thereby implying that if we do not, we too will be guilty and thus deserving of the attacks of the Islamists.]
Bodansky takes bin Laden's message to be an anticipatory moral defense:
He emphasized that the key to the security of all Americans was in their own hands: "Your security does not lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush, or al-Qaida . Your security is in your own hands." This can be done if Americans, through the electoral process, profoundly changed the policy of the US and ended the war on terrorism. "Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security," bin Laden noted. Left unstated was the most important point: namely, that if US voters chose to support the continuation of the war on terrorism in one form or another they would be held responsible for the inevitable retaliation. This was the logic behind the spectacular strikes of September 11, 2001, and this logic remains valid.In a November 2001 interview by Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, Bin Laden made the argument that given their participation in the democratic process, no US citizen was actually an innocent civilian.
"This is a major point in jurisprudence," bin Laden explained. "In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. ... The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims: the entire America, because they elect the Congress."Bodansky reports that in the summer 2004 there began a crescendo of threatening messages, referring to the forthcoming use of weapons of mass destruction against the West, with a strong hint of the use of a nuclear weapon. He also notes that the threats delivered in American English by Azzam al-Amriki in late October of spectacular strikes against American cities have been echoed in numerous messages delivered in Arabic, Dari and a host of other languages.
A note from the Editor reports that GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs sources within the Islamist movements in the Balkans all report, on October 31, 2004, an upsurge in the rumors of a planned nuclear strike by Islamists on one or more U.S. targets. The note adds that Bosnian groups linked to the radical Islamist party SDA were active in supporting the terrorists who carried out the attacks on September 11 in the United States and in March 2004 in Madrid.
Bodansky concludes that taken together, these warnings have created great expectations among those faithful to the Islamic jihadist movement and that the leadership is not likely to ignore or fail to fulfill these expectations.
[Ed. In the full text of the speech posted on Aljazeera.Net, there is a grisly attempt by bin Laden to lay the blame for 9/11 on the victims. He claims to discern in their gestures before the collapse of the towers this message: "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the week..." Bin Laden then sees the victims imploring living Americans to hold their leaders to account, thereby implying that if we do not, we too will be guilty and thus deserving of the attacks of the Islamists.]
Labels: al Qaeda, Al-Qa'idah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaida, Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily, George W. Bush, Global Information System, John Kerry, Osama bin Laden, Yossef Bodansky
Monday, November 01, 2004
The Purpose of the Tape (Part 2)
The Middle East Research Institute [Yigal Carmon, MEMRI] argues that the videotape by Osama bin Laden threatens each U.S. state not to vote for Bush. [Hat tip to Little Green Footballs, "Bin Laden Threatens US States Not to Vote for Bush.] MEMRI claims that the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") were mistranslated by the U.S. media to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact, MEMRI states, the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. In one section of the speech in which bin Laden is highly critical of George W. Bush, the al Qaeda leader states: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."
MEMRI quotes the Islamist website Al-Qal'a as explaining the sentence this way:
There can now be no doubt that the enemies of the West would greatly prefer to see Kerry beat Bush, as I argued two weeks ago in "A Question for Those Not Planning to Vote for Bush". Those who have the responsibility to vote on Tuesday should give that fact the utmost consideration.
MEMRI quotes the Islamist website Al-Qal'a as explaining the sentence this way:
"This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."Thus, MEMRI concludes, Osama bin Laden is attempting to influence the American election by offering a deal to each individual state of the union. He is offering a separate truce to each state, similar to the one offered to the Europeans a few months ago.
There can now be no doubt that the enemies of the West would greatly prefer to see Kerry beat Bush, as I argued two weeks ago in "A Question for Those Not Planning to Vote for Bush". Those who have the responsibility to vote on Tuesday should give that fact the utmost consideration.
Labels: al Qaeda, Al-Qa'idah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaida, George W. Bush, John Kerry, MEMRI, Middle East Research Institute, Osama bin Laden
Sunday, October 31, 2004
The Purpose of the Tape
We have had our October Surprise. The surprise was not the work of the mainstream media nor a "527" group delivering a last-minute exposé on what one of the candidates did decades ago. Nor was the surprise the doing of the Bush administration, as expected by those cynics who thought the administration would withhold news of bin Laden's death or capture until its revelation could have maximal effect on the electorate. No, though the surprise was the appearance of bin Laden, as Teresa Heinz Kerry had feared, it was not an appearance that anyone expected. We did not anticipate our October Surprise to be delivered, in the form of a videotape, from Osama bin Laden himself to the front door of the Islamabad office of Al Jazeera. And thus we were genuinely surprised.
The surprise went deeper. For we expected an October Surprise to represent an obvious advantage for one side or the other. On this weekend before the election, however, it is by no means obvious how this October Surprise is likely to sway the electorate. Even putting aside the fact that millions have already cast their ballot, it is hard to anticipate the effect of the tape on those who have yet to vote.
What was Osama bin Laden doing? Obviously, he was giving a message addressed explicitly to the American people. More important than the propositional content of his utterance, however, is what effects he intended to produce in those who heard his words. The philosopher J. L. Austin coined the term "perlocutionary act" to describe that part of a speech act that is directed toward producing an effect in the audience. What was the perlocutionary effect that bin Laden was seeking? One effect, no doubt intended, was that the Americans would be surprised. Another, perhaps, was directed toward the Arab world: to lift al Qaeda's image and morale. Perhaps another was to signal al Qaeda cells to proceed with an attack. Were there other purposes intended by bin Laden toward his American audience?
Undoubtedly there were. The timing of the videotape makes plain that bin Laden intended to have his words heard before the election. In the words broadcast by al Jazeera, and apparently in those words mysteriously not broadcast, bin Laden was intent on mocking Bush. (In Austin's terminology, bin Laden's mocking is one of his illocutionary acts.) It is understandable that those Democrats who echo Michael Moore, those who use similar language with similar intent, should wish to put distance between their own rhetoric and that of bin Laden. Some attempt to find that difference in the intended perlocutionary effects. The terrorists, they insist, would prefer to see Bush win, because al Qaeda could then continue to exploit the hatred of Bush to recruit more youth into al Qaeda. This response has the scent of desperation.
Others on the left do not attribute such subtlety to bin Laden's motives, but take him at his word when he claims that it will not matter to the security of America whether or not Kerry or Bush win. Here, I think they are only half-right. Note that bin Laden declared that the idea of attacking the twin towers came to him in 1982, when the United States aided Israel in its invasion of Lebanon. Yet, the groups with which bin Laden was affiliated did not wait until 2001 to respond. In 1983, a group known as Islamic Jihad destroyed the United States embassies in Beirut and in Kuwait. In 1992, that same group destroyed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. In 1993, they first struck the twin towers, in the bombing attack planned by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. These attacks span the administrations of both parties in the U.S. It is a fantasy to believe that bin Laden would respond to the election of Kerry by ordering a ceasefire.
So, it is a half-truth that al-Qaeda and bin Laden do not care who wins this election. To be sure, the election will have no effect on their intentions nor on their hatred of the West. Nor will the election change their impossible demand that the West disengage from the Islamic world, and only such a disengagement could constitute the security that bin Laden demanded in his videotape. Nonetheless, the election will have an effect on the level of resistance that the jihadists can expect to meet. That is the difference that explains why bin Laden would prefer that George Bush lose, and why he wished to demonstrate that he was alive, well, and capable of mocking Bush right before the election. The intended purpose of the tape was to help swing the election Kerry's way. We will soon see whether bin Laden gets what he wishes.
The surprise went deeper. For we expected an October Surprise to represent an obvious advantage for one side or the other. On this weekend before the election, however, it is by no means obvious how this October Surprise is likely to sway the electorate. Even putting aside the fact that millions have already cast their ballot, it is hard to anticipate the effect of the tape on those who have yet to vote.
What was Osama bin Laden doing? Obviously, he was giving a message addressed explicitly to the American people. More important than the propositional content of his utterance, however, is what effects he intended to produce in those who heard his words. The philosopher J. L. Austin coined the term "perlocutionary act" to describe that part of a speech act that is directed toward producing an effect in the audience. What was the perlocutionary effect that bin Laden was seeking? One effect, no doubt intended, was that the Americans would be surprised. Another, perhaps, was directed toward the Arab world: to lift al Qaeda's image and morale. Perhaps another was to signal al Qaeda cells to proceed with an attack. Were there other purposes intended by bin Laden toward his American audience?
Undoubtedly there were. The timing of the videotape makes plain that bin Laden intended to have his words heard before the election. In the words broadcast by al Jazeera, and apparently in those words mysteriously not broadcast, bin Laden was intent on mocking Bush. (In Austin's terminology, bin Laden's mocking is one of his illocutionary acts.) It is understandable that those Democrats who echo Michael Moore, those who use similar language with similar intent, should wish to put distance between their own rhetoric and that of bin Laden. Some attempt to find that difference in the intended perlocutionary effects. The terrorists, they insist, would prefer to see Bush win, because al Qaeda could then continue to exploit the hatred of Bush to recruit more youth into al Qaeda. This response has the scent of desperation.
Others on the left do not attribute such subtlety to bin Laden's motives, but take him at his word when he claims that it will not matter to the security of America whether or not Kerry or Bush win. Here, I think they are only half-right. Note that bin Laden declared that the idea of attacking the twin towers came to him in 1982, when the United States aided Israel in its invasion of Lebanon. Yet, the groups with which bin Laden was affiliated did not wait until 2001 to respond. In 1983, a group known as Islamic Jihad destroyed the United States embassies in Beirut and in Kuwait. In 1992, that same group destroyed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. In 1993, they first struck the twin towers, in the bombing attack planned by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. These attacks span the administrations of both parties in the U.S. It is a fantasy to believe that bin Laden would respond to the election of Kerry by ordering a ceasefire.
So, it is a half-truth that al-Qaeda and bin Laden do not care who wins this election. To be sure, the election will have no effect on their intentions nor on their hatred of the West. Nor will the election change their impossible demand that the West disengage from the Islamic world, and only such a disengagement could constitute the security that bin Laden demanded in his videotape. Nonetheless, the election will have an effect on the level of resistance that the jihadists can expect to meet. That is the difference that explains why bin Laden would prefer that George Bush lose, and why he wished to demonstrate that he was alive, well, and capable of mocking Bush right before the election. The intended purpose of the tape was to help swing the election Kerry's way. We will soon see whether bin Laden gets what he wishes.
Labels: al Qaeda, Al-Jazeera, Al-Qa'idah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaida, George W. Bush, John Kerry, Michael Moore, October Surprise, Osama bin Laden
Friday, October 29, 2004
"The Streets Will Run With Blood"
Today's al Qaeda video (which warned America that its "streets will run with blood") played only in part on ABC news after The Drudge Report broke the story of its existence. The tape reportedly warns of retribution should America reelect President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Ace of Spades notes that the only newsworthy part of the tape is the (at least implicit) endorsement of John Kerry by al Qaeda. Without the embargoed threat of retaliation for America's reelecting Bush and Cheney, the video, showing the rantings of a jihadist who claims to be an American citizen, would have no news value at all. Yet, Ace of Spades notes, ABC was careful to leave out that endorsement and instead chose to highlight the portions that show terrorists to be "angry at Bush and Cheney personally, rather than America, the West, and modernity generally." The political implication of the tape, that terrorists prefer Kerry to Bush, is a message that the network news regards as too explosive to air in the week before the election without further corroboration of the tape's authenticity. (One could only wish that they had a similar reluctance to corroborate stories that might give Democrats a last-minute edge.) Yet, is it not because this story obviously makes a case for reelecting President Bush that network sources admit that they are "struggling to find a correct journalistic 'balance'"?
In fact, the videotape leaves little doubt how we should answer the question I asked last week in this space: Which candidate do you believe the terrorists would most like to see win, two weeks from today? I asked that question to make the case for reelecting George W. Bush. The argument was this: the war on terror is by far the most important basis upon which to base one's vote; the terrorists would prefer to see Bush lose; our conflict with terrorists is approximately zero-sum (i.e., we share no important interests in common), and consequently, that we should prefer to see Bush win.
The interests of the West and the interests of the jihadists are in direct opposition. We prefer the survival of our civilization to its extinction, and they prefer their own death to settling for less than our extinction. The lesson of the al Qaeda video is not that jihadists hate us because Bush is President, but that they hate Bush because he is dedicated to killing the jihadists before they kill us.
In fact, the videotape leaves little doubt how we should answer the question I asked last week in this space: Which candidate do you believe the terrorists would most like to see win, two weeks from today? I asked that question to make the case for reelecting George W. Bush. The argument was this: the war on terror is by far the most important basis upon which to base one's vote; the terrorists would prefer to see Bush lose; our conflict with terrorists is approximately zero-sum (i.e., we share no important interests in common), and consequently, that we should prefer to see Bush win.
The interests of the West and the interests of the jihadists are in direct opposition. We prefer the survival of our civilization to its extinction, and they prefer their own death to settling for less than our extinction. The lesson of the al Qaeda video is not that jihadists hate us because Bush is President, but that they hate Bush because he is dedicated to killing the jihadists before they kill us.
Labels: al Qaeda, Al-Qa'idah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaida, George W. Bush, jihadists, John Kerry, Osama bin Laden
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Did Kerry Reveal in Debates Foreknowledge of New York Times/CBS Story?
On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh noted that, in the second debate, John Kerry seemed to reveal that he had advance knowledge of the story broken (in at least two senses of 'broken') on Monday by the New York Times:
KERRY: You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy. But winning the peace is larger than just the military component. General Shinseki had the wisdom to say you're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace. The military's job is to win the war. The president's job is to win the peace. The president did not do what was necessary, didn't bring in enough nations, didn't deliver the help, didn't close off the borders, didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.Acknowledgements to Steve W, for posting this on Free Republic.RUSH: What dump, senator? What did you know back on October the 8th that the New York Times didn't report until October 25th? What ammo dump are you talking about, senator? Are you talking about the ammo dump that had no ammo in it that the New York Times made a big story of yesterday that's totally false and fraudulent? How did you know about this, senator, if that's the ammo dump you're talking about? The ammo dump with no weapons in it that therefore could be killing none of our troops? Which ammo dump are you talking about?
In the discussion of that posting, a comment is posted by "cgk" noting that Kerry also made this remark in the first debate on September 30:
That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.Later in the first debate, Kerry returned to this (then puzzling) topic of our not guarding nuclear facilities:
When you guard the Oil Ministry but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, `Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil.' Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things through properly, and these are the things you have to think through.The late hit by the mainstream media is now looking like a coordinated attack.
Labels: Iraq, John Kerry, Rush Limbaugh
Monday, October 25, 2004
Kerry's 13/15th Falsehood
In the second presidential debate, Sen. John Kerry claimed to have met with all fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council just one week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable."
Joel Mowbray, reports in the Washington Times on Monday that of the five ambassadors to the Security Council in 2002 who were reached for comment, four of the five said they had never met Mr. Kerry. Three of the four ambassadors -- those from Mexico, Columbia, and Bulgaria -- were willing to be identified for the report.
France's chief U.N. representative, Jean-David Levitte, said through a spokesperson that Mr. Kerry had had one-on-one meetings with "some" of the members of the Security Council, but could only name himself and Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of Britain as individuals on the Council with whom Kerry had met.
UPDATE: Shape of Days is underwhelmed. Wizbang provides context as well as links to other stories that could spell trouble for the Kerry campaign in the waning days of October.
Labels: France, Jean-David Levitte, John Kerry, Saddam Hussein, Security Council, United Nations
Sunday, October 24, 2004
An October Surprise? (Some Philosophical Reflections)
Throughout this electoral season, there have been whispers of an "October surprise" that would cause a seismic shift in the polls and transform a close race into a blowout. Teresa Heinz Kerry, in a September speech in Phoenix, said she "wouldn't be surprised if he [Osama bin Laden] appeared in the next month [October]."
Perhaps we can charitably take Teresa Heinz Kerry at her word. For most of us, however, an appearance of Osama bin Laden in captivity would certainly count as a surprise. Despite rumors that bin Laden still is hiding on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there has been no confirmed new video of him since December 26, 2001. Many argue on this basis that the man, who heretofore craved publicity in life, must now be dead. See James S. Robbins, John Kelly (via Roger L. Simon), Mark Steyn, and Froggy Ruminations (link courtesy of Power Line).
In recent days, speculation has shifted to events in Iraq as a potential October surprise. Perhaps there will be a final push in Fallujah, culminating in the capture or killing of al-Zarqawi. Perhaps the resistance in Iraq will attempt a major penetration of the Green Zone in Baghdad, something akin to the 1968 Tet offensive by North Vietnamese forces.
As the days of October dwindle down to the final few before the election of November 2, the only surprise of October may be the absence of surprise, and the paradoxical possibility of a no-surprise surprise looks more and more likely. Yet, anticipations of a surprising absence of surprise would only set us up psychologically for a real and robust surprise.
The idea that we can anticipate an October surprise with certainty is subject to paradox. Suppose we could know in advance that there will be an October surprise, a recognizably surprising event that has the potential to swing the election. One would think that this knowledge is incompatible with the event's occurring on the last day of October. Should there be no surprise before the last day of October, the certain knowledge that there will be an October surprise would imply that the surprising event would have to occur on the very last day; ergo, no surprise. Since the outcome of an unsurprising surprise is a contradiction, it follows that the October surprise must occur before the last day of the month. Yet, this result shows that the event cannot occur on October 30 either. For, if we have already ruled out October 31, then, on the night of October 29, there is only one available day for a surprise. Again, no surprise, if the surprise occurs on October 30, the only remaining day available. We can push the argument back to show that, for each day of October, the October surprise cannot occur on that day. So, there can be no October surprise! (The paradox is known as the "surprise examination paradox," since it is often formulated in terms of a teacher announcing to a class that there will be a surprise examination in the coming week.)
To my mind, the most promising solution to the "surprise quiz" paradox is proposed by Timothy Williamson, who argues that the argument for the impossibility of an announced surprise quiz being given in the coming week rests upon a dubious principle that whatever one knows, one knows that one knows. On the positive project of explaining how we can be surprised, Williamson suggests that our knowledge of future surprises can be an inexact knowledge, a knowledge that allows for a margin of error.
In any event, there still remains a little time for us to be genuinely surprised by some event in this electoral cycle, particularly since we do not know with certainty that we will be surprised.
UPDATE: Anticipation of a foreign affairs story harmful to Kerry appearing in tomorrow's Washington Times has generated a flurry of blog activity this weekend. See: Powerline, Redstate, INDC Journal and Secure Liberty. For some humorous speculation on the surprise, see: Protein Wisdom.
Perhaps we can charitably take Teresa Heinz Kerry at her word. For most of us, however, an appearance of Osama bin Laden in captivity would certainly count as a surprise. Despite rumors that bin Laden still is hiding on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there has been no confirmed new video of him since December 26, 2001. Many argue on this basis that the man, who heretofore craved publicity in life, must now be dead. See James S. Robbins, John Kelly (via Roger L. Simon), Mark Steyn, and Froggy Ruminations (link courtesy of Power Line).
In recent days, speculation has shifted to events in Iraq as a potential October surprise. Perhaps there will be a final push in Fallujah, culminating in the capture or killing of al-Zarqawi. Perhaps the resistance in Iraq will attempt a major penetration of the Green Zone in Baghdad, something akin to the 1968 Tet offensive by North Vietnamese forces.
As the days of October dwindle down to the final few before the election of November 2, the only surprise of October may be the absence of surprise, and the paradoxical possibility of a no-surprise surprise looks more and more likely. Yet, anticipations of a surprising absence of surprise would only set us up psychologically for a real and robust surprise.
The idea that we can anticipate an October surprise with certainty is subject to paradox. Suppose we could know in advance that there will be an October surprise, a recognizably surprising event that has the potential to swing the election. One would think that this knowledge is incompatible with the event's occurring on the last day of October. Should there be no surprise before the last day of October, the certain knowledge that there will be an October surprise would imply that the surprising event would have to occur on the very last day; ergo, no surprise. Since the outcome of an unsurprising surprise is a contradiction, it follows that the October surprise must occur before the last day of the month. Yet, this result shows that the event cannot occur on October 30 either. For, if we have already ruled out October 31, then, on the night of October 29, there is only one available day for a surprise. Again, no surprise, if the surprise occurs on October 30, the only remaining day available. We can push the argument back to show that, for each day of October, the October surprise cannot occur on that day. So, there can be no October surprise! (The paradox is known as the "surprise examination paradox," since it is often formulated in terms of a teacher announcing to a class that there will be a surprise examination in the coming week.)
To my mind, the most promising solution to the "surprise quiz" paradox is proposed by Timothy Williamson, who argues that the argument for the impossibility of an announced surprise quiz being given in the coming week rests upon a dubious principle that whatever one knows, one knows that one knows. On the positive project of explaining how we can be surprised, Williamson suggests that our knowledge of future surprises can be an inexact knowledge, a knowledge that allows for a margin of error.
In any event, there still remains a little time for us to be genuinely surprised by some event in this electoral cycle, particularly since we do not know with certainty that we will be surprised.
UPDATE: Anticipation of a foreign affairs story harmful to Kerry appearing in tomorrow's Washington Times has generated a flurry of blog activity this weekend. See: Powerline, Redstate, INDC Journal and Secure Liberty. For some humorous speculation on the surprise, see: Protein Wisdom.
Labels: John Kerry, October Surprise, Osama bin Laden, Teresa Heinz Kerry
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Does Bush Have a Higher IQ than Kerry?
Steve Sailer reviews scores of Bush and Kerry on IQ-type tests and argues that the available evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that Bush has a slightly higher IQ than Kerry. (Credit goes to Mickey Kaus for the link.) This would be rightly regarded as insignificant, were it not for the irony, noted by Sailer, that those on the left tend to believe that IQ is a discredited concept, while also tending to believe that leftists are better than conservatives, in part because they are assumed to have higher IQs.
Labels: George W. Bush, John Kerry, Mickey Kaus
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Sandy Berger: He's Back!
Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's national security adviser, is quoted by The Chosun Ilbo as a key foreign policy and security advisor to John Kerry, long after he had reportedly resigned from the position because of accusations of stealing documents from the National Archives.
Meanwhile, the Gulfsands oil company, a client of Stonebridge International, the "global strategy firm" founded by Sandy Berger, has oil and gas exploration interests in Syria and is looking to develop them in Iraq. Stonebridge Vice Chairman H. P. Goldfield claims Berger is not involved in the work for Gulfsands.
Meanwhile, the Gulfsands oil company, a client of Stonebridge International, the "global strategy firm" founded by Sandy Berger, has oil and gas exploration interests in Syria and is looking to develop them in Iraq. Stonebridge Vice Chairman H. P. Goldfield claims Berger is not involved in the work for Gulfsands.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Gulfsands Oil Company, John Kerry, Sandy Berger, Stonebridge International
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Symposium: A Question for Those Not Planning to Vote for Bush
I wrote the following essay on why I am voting for Bush and not for Kerry for Hugh Hewitt's Symposium. Having finished it, I see it exceeds his word limit. If he still chooses to link to it, and you are coming here from his website in a hurry to sample many other submissions, you may wish to read just the 250 words in bold.
Which candidate do you believe the terrorists would most like to see win, two weeks from today?
Notice that I am just asking you for your opinion. Reflect upon what you believe, not what you know. If you say you have no opinion, ask yourself a second question: what is the most important issue facing the American electorate? If you agree with me that terrorism is the most important issue, then it is likely you strongly agree that it is. Few think it a close call. Some who do not see terrorism as being of overriding importance think it an exaggerated threat or as transformable into a tolerable nuisance. I would venture to say that if this is your view, two weeks out, then you are unlikely to vote for Bush and unlikely to be persuaded to change your mind. You are welcome to stay, of course, but I would invite you to look at some of my other posts on terrorist activities or simply to reflect on your initial response to the events of September 11.
If you are still with me, then I will presume you think terrorism is the overriding issue this year. It follows from thinking terrorism is of overriding importance in this election that the question of whether the terrorists would prefer Kerry to Bush is a "live" one for you. You should care about forming an answer, and you cannot have an answer but think that your answer does not matter for your vote.
That your answer must matter follows from the nature of our conflict with the jihadists. Not all conflict is like this one. There can be conflicts in which one side can share some preferences with the other. In a friendly competition, for example, our interests overlap to some extent. Both football teams want to have a game of football, and thus want the game to be refereed competently. Even in unfriendly competitions, our interests can coincide to some extent. The Soviet Union and the United States shared an interest in avoiding the breakdown of nuclear deterrence, for neither side wanted to see the outcome of mutually assured destruction.
Game theorists call a strategic interaction in which interests are perfectly at odds a zero-sum game. In a zero-sum interaction, if one side prefers outcome A to outcome B, the other side will prefer outcome B to outcome A. This is because any gain for the one side is necessarily a loss for the other side. If we are in a zero-sum game with jihadists, then if it is in their interest to see Bush lose, it is in our interest to see him win.
Now, our conflict with the jihadists is as close to being zero-sum as any we have ever seen. They have no country, no property, no individuals that they feel compelled to protect. Do you doubt that the jihadists would use weapons of mass destruction if they acquired them? If you do not, then you see us as having little bargaining leverage over them. There is nothing we can offer them, save capitulation and unconditional surrender. Yet even surrender is unlikely to satisfy those who love to see us die. Since we prefer the survival of our civilization to its extinction, and they prefer their own death to settling for less than our extinction, our conflict with the jihadists is approximately zero-sum. Our preferences and theirs are absolutely opposed.
Back to my question. Do you think then that the jihadists prefer to see Kerry lose? I doubt you do. Those who say that Kerry would make America stronger usually quickly shift from talking about the future to talking about the past. They say that our invasion and occupation of Iraq have helped the radicals recruit more terrorists. If you are tempted to say that Bush has made the terrorists stronger, then are you also tempted to say that the jihadists prefer to see Kerry lose? I doubt you are. I suspect you believe that the terrorists really do hate Bush and fervently hope that he will lose. I suspect that you are just wishing my question is not a live one. You are wishing that the terrorists are so weak and we are so strong that it does not matter whether they get what they want. You wish that the terrorists shall turn out to be little more than a tolerable nuisance.
Wishes are easy; hope is hard. We cannot hope that our wishes will come true if we see that the world of the 1990s led to September 11 itself. Radical jihadists, if protected by friendly states, are capable of producing intolerable acts of terror. Given time, they will be capable of far more.
Some of us might be inclined toward fatalism. Some might despair that there is no hope for victory in a war against nihilistic fanatics. This is an overreaction. For the radicals to form cells that are sufficiently large to produce mass terror, they must be afforded protection by states friendly to their cause. Yet, we can deter the states that sponsor these groups. States share some of our interests in preserving some aspects of the status quo ante. Our conflicts with them are not zero-sum. There is hope that we can exploit some commonalities in our interests with these hostile states, for they do not have an interest in a direct war with the United States and its allies in the West.
So, our only hope of winning this war against the jihadists is to find and to kill as many of the radicals as we can and to deter those who can be deterred from protecting them. This is precisely the Bush strategy for dealing with terrorism. It makes sense, then, that the terrorists would oppose Bush and prefer that he loses. It makes little sense that those of us in the West who oppose terrorism should have the same preference.
Which candidate do you believe the terrorists would most like to see win, two weeks from today?
Notice that I am just asking you for your opinion. Reflect upon what you believe, not what you know. If you say you have no opinion, ask yourself a second question: what is the most important issue facing the American electorate? If you agree with me that terrorism is the most important issue, then it is likely you strongly agree that it is. Few think it a close call. Some who do not see terrorism as being of overriding importance think it an exaggerated threat or as transformable into a tolerable nuisance. I would venture to say that if this is your view, two weeks out, then you are unlikely to vote for Bush and unlikely to be persuaded to change your mind. You are welcome to stay, of course, but I would invite you to look at some of my other posts on terrorist activities or simply to reflect on your initial response to the events of September 11.
If you are still with me, then I will presume you think terrorism is the overriding issue this year. It follows from thinking terrorism is of overriding importance in this election that the question of whether the terrorists would prefer Kerry to Bush is a "live" one for you. You should care about forming an answer, and you cannot have an answer but think that your answer does not matter for your vote.
That your answer must matter follows from the nature of our conflict with the jihadists. Not all conflict is like this one. There can be conflicts in which one side can share some preferences with the other. In a friendly competition, for example, our interests overlap to some extent. Both football teams want to have a game of football, and thus want the game to be refereed competently. Even in unfriendly competitions, our interests can coincide to some extent. The Soviet Union and the United States shared an interest in avoiding the breakdown of nuclear deterrence, for neither side wanted to see the outcome of mutually assured destruction.
Game theorists call a strategic interaction in which interests are perfectly at odds a zero-sum game. In a zero-sum interaction, if one side prefers outcome A to outcome B, the other side will prefer outcome B to outcome A. This is because any gain for the one side is necessarily a loss for the other side. If we are in a zero-sum game with jihadists, then if it is in their interest to see Bush lose, it is in our interest to see him win.
Now, our conflict with the jihadists is as close to being zero-sum as any we have ever seen. They have no country, no property, no individuals that they feel compelled to protect. Do you doubt that the jihadists would use weapons of mass destruction if they acquired them? If you do not, then you see us as having little bargaining leverage over them. There is nothing we can offer them, save capitulation and unconditional surrender. Yet even surrender is unlikely to satisfy those who love to see us die. Since we prefer the survival of our civilization to its extinction, and they prefer their own death to settling for less than our extinction, our conflict with the jihadists is approximately zero-sum. Our preferences and theirs are absolutely opposed.
Back to my question. Do you think then that the jihadists prefer to see Kerry lose? I doubt you do. Those who say that Kerry would make America stronger usually quickly shift from talking about the future to talking about the past. They say that our invasion and occupation of Iraq have helped the radicals recruit more terrorists. If you are tempted to say that Bush has made the terrorists stronger, then are you also tempted to say that the jihadists prefer to see Kerry lose? I doubt you are. I suspect you believe that the terrorists really do hate Bush and fervently hope that he will lose. I suspect that you are just wishing my question is not a live one. You are wishing that the terrorists are so weak and we are so strong that it does not matter whether they get what they want. You wish that the terrorists shall turn out to be little more than a tolerable nuisance.
Wishes are easy; hope is hard. We cannot hope that our wishes will come true if we see that the world of the 1990s led to September 11 itself. Radical jihadists, if protected by friendly states, are capable of producing intolerable acts of terror. Given time, they will be capable of far more.
Some of us might be inclined toward fatalism. Some might despair that there is no hope for victory in a war against nihilistic fanatics. This is an overreaction. For the radicals to form cells that are sufficiently large to produce mass terror, they must be afforded protection by states friendly to their cause. Yet, we can deter the states that sponsor these groups. States share some of our interests in preserving some aspects of the status quo ante. Our conflicts with them are not zero-sum. There is hope that we can exploit some commonalities in our interests with these hostile states, for they do not have an interest in a direct war with the United States and its allies in the West.
So, our only hope of winning this war against the jihadists is to find and to kill as many of the radicals as we can and to deter those who can be deterred from protecting them. This is precisely the Bush strategy for dealing with terrorism. It makes sense, then, that the terrorists would oppose Bush and prefer that he loses. It makes little sense that those of us in the West who oppose terrorism should have the same preference.
Labels: George W. Bush, Hugh Hewitt, jihadists, John Kerry, zero-sum games
Friday, October 15, 2004
Psst! There's Something About Mary!
There has been heated reaction to Kerry's slipping into his answer to a question on homosexuality mention of the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Much of the reaction, both that of support and that of criticism, has focused on motives. Mary Cheney's mother, Lynne Cheney, called Kerry's remark a "cheap and tawdry political trick." The Kerry-Edwards campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill quickly defended Kerry's right to use the Cheney daughter in cheap and tawdry political tricks, declaring that she was "fair game." The Kerry people regrouped the next day, deciding to trot out Lynne Cheney's counterpart, Elizabeth Edwards. The wife of Kerry's running mate John Edwards (who had also made a point to mention Mary Cheney's sexual orientation in his debate with her father), went on the offensive, attacking Mrs. Cheney's protestations: "I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences."
Fortunately, the question of Kerry's motives can be settled here on headland. Right before the debate, I had just finished hooking up a new SONY soul-a-scope with "real time" text captioning technology. The soul-a-scope was able to print out a caption of what Kerry was really thinking while he was listening to Bush. Here's the relevant portion of the debate transcript, with Kerry's inner thoughts side-by-side with Bush's spoken words.
| SPOKEN WORDS: | KERRY'S THOUGHTS |
| BUSH: I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution. | Uh oh. He seems sharper tonight. He just may be able to utter something coherent here. |
| BUSH: It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution. | Yikes. He's going directly after my "let the states decide" ruse. |
| BUSH: I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. My opponent was against it. | This blows! Wish I had a lifeline here. I'd ask Bob to let me call Jesse Jackson. Jesse would tell Black Americans to ignore Bush's diversionary tactic of talking about something they agree with him about. Somehow, I just can't tell people they are homophobic yahoos without looking like an effete snob. |
| BUSH: It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman. | O.K. he's asking for it. I'm not buying this sincerity act. Oh yeah, he really cares about states' rights. And frat-boy is religious now? Please! So, I've got to hit him over his dumb head with a 2x4 on this. Hey, I saw how Cheney squirmed when Breck Girl brought up his daughter! |
| BUSH: But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts,... | The veep can't even pretend to agree with Bush on this. And Bush can't help but be loyal to his guy. I mean, why else is Cheney on the ticket? OK, so I'll let Bush know that whenever he brings up gay marriage, I'll bemoan the fact that he's driving a wedge right through the family of his own running mate! |
| BUSH: ...and I don't think that's in our nation's interests. SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry? | OK. My turn. Here goes. First, a little piety, and then I go in for the kill. |
| KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. |
Labels: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, John Edwards, John Kerry, Lynne Cheney, Mary Cheney
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Kerry's Supporters Prepare Ads to Exploit Any Major Terrorist Attack Before the Election
In today's Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily it is claimed that Global Information System sources report that supporters of Sen. John Kerry have "prepared a series of television ads to take advantage of a possible major terrorist attack against the US before the [November 2, 2004] election" ["Campaign Supporting US Presidential Hopeful Kerry Readies Ads to Capitalize on Terrorist Attack on US"].
The ads reportedly say of President George W. Bush: "He said he'd keep us safe. He didn't."
The report does not identify the tax-exempt 527 group that has prepared the ads.
The ads reportedly say of President George W. Bush: "He said he'd keep us safe. He didn't."
The report does not identify the tax-exempt 527 group that has prepared the ads.
Labels: 527 groups, Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily, George W. Bush, Global Information System, John Kerry
Monday, October 11, 2004
Should We Hope Terrorism Will Someday Be Nothing But A Nuisance?
In Sunday's New York Times magazine ("Kerry's Undeclared War," October 10, 2004), Matt Bai asks John Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again. Kerry gives a startling reply:
Let's start by reflecting on his choice of the word "nuisance." When my dog gets fleas, that's a nuisance. My having a flat tire on the way to work is a nuisance. Terror such as we witnessed on 9/11 is not a nuisance; it is a horror. What then could Kerry possibly mean? He suggests when terrorism isn't happening every day, when it isn't on the rise, that we will have reached a point where we can tolerate our situation without taking terrorism as seriously as we now are taking it. Surely he cannot mean this. We are not now seeing terrorist acts every day in the U.S., and even if we include the Middle East and Southeast Asia, we do not see events on the scale of 9/11 every year, much less every day. Once every five years would be more than enough to terrorize us.
So, let's assume (as Matt Bai does) that Kerry is optimistically expecting a future in which planes never again are flown into buildings, anthrax is never spread across a city, and a nuclear bomb is never detonated in one of our harbors. Leaving aside the question of what would remain as the "terrorism" we "know we're never going to end," let's consider just how Kerry hopes to eliminate all this really, really serious stuff. If Kerry has a "plan" to achieve this outcome, then presumably it involves our having better law enforcement. Yet, plainly law enforcement cannot suffice. First, we usually can't catch the bad guys before they do bad things (particularly if they have safe haven in nations we cannot invade without failing the "global test"), and, even if we could catch them, we can only prosecute people for crimes they've already committed. So, if we are to prevent such activities, it could only be by deterrence. Yet, how does Kerry hope to deter? Fear of punishment is not a credible deterrent threat to jihadists who regard martyrdom as an honor. The only viable alternative is to kill terrorists before they have the chance to act and to maintain a deterrent threat of a warlike response toward any state that sponsors or assists terrorist groups. This, of course, is the Bush Doctrine and involves our responding to terror as we would to an act of war and not as we do to ordinary crime. Plainly Kerry rejects that response to terror, so we are still left without any plan for eliminating the most egregious acts of terror.
Suppose we take Kerry not to be expressing an expectation about the worst acts of terror, but merely a wish. Let's join him and pretend that we no longer had to worry about "mega-terrorism." Let's indulge in the fantasy in which it is always September 10, and never mind how we might make this world actual. Yet, since Kerry does not dare to hope we could eliminate all acts of terror, we must still ask what terrorism would that leave as always with us? What terror can only be reduced and never eliminated? Presumably, we'd still have to concern ourselves with suicide bombings, with being shot by snipers at rest stops and service stations, with kidnappings and even beheadings. Now, while it is true that we live today under the threat of organized crime and serial killers, we are not all accustomed in this country to living under the threat of organized criminals whose business is itself serial killing. Who among us would find this tolerable? Who would not take such a prospect to threaten the very fabric of life itself? More chilling still would be the prospect of knowing that the state found a certain level of this activity to be tolerable and not worth the cost of complete elimination.
There are only two ways I can imagine Americans tolerating such terrorism in the way we tolerate a low level of ordinary crime. One way would be to be deceived: to be told, and to believe, that acts that were really the work of terrorist organizations were really nothing more than ordinary crimes. Bombs would go off, people would be found headless, but we the people would be assured that these crimes were not the work of terrorists, but only random acts by unaffiliated criminals and copycats. What would be rage against terrorist groups would then lack a focused target. Outrage would dissolve into a restless unease and eventual resignation. The second way we could tolerate a level of terrorism of the smaller scaled variety would be if we were to become much less sensitive to death and to injustice. It is only because we care much more deeply about life and justice than does the suicide bomber that they are inclined to volunteer for the job and we are apt to be horrified by their choice. Make us a bit more like them and we might only respond with a yawn when we hear of another suicide bomber killing a few score of us. Both prospects, that of being deceived and that of callous indifference to death and to injustice, are dreadful. That a candidate for the Presidency should hope for a day when terrorism will not bother us, when we consider it nothing more than a mere nuisance, is indeed frightening.
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."Like Mr. Bai, I find Kerry's reply remarkable, but not because it is optimistic, as Mr. Bai believes. Instead, I find Kerry's reply to be deeply disturbing and even frightening.
Let's start by reflecting on his choice of the word "nuisance." When my dog gets fleas, that's a nuisance. My having a flat tire on the way to work is a nuisance. Terror such as we witnessed on 9/11 is not a nuisance; it is a horror. What then could Kerry possibly mean? He suggests when terrorism isn't happening every day, when it isn't on the rise, that we will have reached a point where we can tolerate our situation without taking terrorism as seriously as we now are taking it. Surely he cannot mean this. We are not now seeing terrorist acts every day in the U.S., and even if we include the Middle East and Southeast Asia, we do not see events on the scale of 9/11 every year, much less every day. Once every five years would be more than enough to terrorize us.
So, let's assume (as Matt Bai does) that Kerry is optimistically expecting a future in which planes never again are flown into buildings, anthrax is never spread across a city, and a nuclear bomb is never detonated in one of our harbors. Leaving aside the question of what would remain as the "terrorism" we "know we're never going to end," let's consider just how Kerry hopes to eliminate all this really, really serious stuff. If Kerry has a "plan" to achieve this outcome, then presumably it involves our having better law enforcement. Yet, plainly law enforcement cannot suffice. First, we usually can't catch the bad guys before they do bad things (particularly if they have safe haven in nations we cannot invade without failing the "global test"), and, even if we could catch them, we can only prosecute people for crimes they've already committed. So, if we are to prevent such activities, it could only be by deterrence. Yet, how does Kerry hope to deter? Fear of punishment is not a credible deterrent threat to jihadists who regard martyrdom as an honor. The only viable alternative is to kill terrorists before they have the chance to act and to maintain a deterrent threat of a warlike response toward any state that sponsors or assists terrorist groups. This, of course, is the Bush Doctrine and involves our responding to terror as we would to an act of war and not as we do to ordinary crime. Plainly Kerry rejects that response to terror, so we are still left without any plan for eliminating the most egregious acts of terror.
Suppose we take Kerry not to be expressing an expectation about the worst acts of terror, but merely a wish. Let's join him and pretend that we no longer had to worry about "mega-terrorism." Let's indulge in the fantasy in which it is always September 10, and never mind how we might make this world actual. Yet, since Kerry does not dare to hope we could eliminate all acts of terror, we must still ask what terrorism would that leave as always with us? What terror can only be reduced and never eliminated? Presumably, we'd still have to concern ourselves with suicide bombings, with being shot by snipers at rest stops and service stations, with kidnappings and even beheadings. Now, while it is true that we live today under the threat of organized crime and serial killers, we are not all accustomed in this country to living under the threat of organized criminals whose business is itself serial killing. Who among us would find this tolerable? Who would not take such a prospect to threaten the very fabric of life itself? More chilling still would be the prospect of knowing that the state found a certain level of this activity to be tolerable and not worth the cost of complete elimination.
There are only two ways I can imagine Americans tolerating such terrorism in the way we tolerate a low level of ordinary crime. One way would be to be deceived: to be told, and to believe, that acts that were really the work of terrorist organizations were really nothing more than ordinary crimes. Bombs would go off, people would be found headless, but we the people would be assured that these crimes were not the work of terrorists, but only random acts by unaffiliated criminals and copycats. What would be rage against terrorist groups would then lack a focused target. Outrage would dissolve into a restless unease and eventual resignation. The second way we could tolerate a level of terrorism of the smaller scaled variety would be if we were to become much less sensitive to death and to injustice. It is only because we care much more deeply about life and justice than does the suicide bomber that they are inclined to volunteer for the job and we are apt to be horrified by their choice. Make us a bit more like them and we might only respond with a yawn when we hear of another suicide bomber killing a few score of us. Both prospects, that of being deceived and that of callous indifference to death and to injustice, are dreadful. That a candidate for the Presidency should hope for a day when terrorism will not bother us, when we consider it nothing more than a mere nuisance, is indeed frightening.
Labels: anthrax, George W. Bush, jihadists, John Kerry, terror
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Friends of Enemies Are Enemies
The doctrine of the Bush presidency is that the U.S. response to 9/11 must be warlike and not merely juridical. Senators Kerry and Edwards at times suggest that they reject this Bush Doctrine, but intentionally blur the question of whether Iraq helped plan the September 11 attacks with the question of whether Iraq was a supportive ally and friend of terrorist groups and a declared enemy of the United States.
While the controversy over Bush's Doctrine continues, the legal response to terror continues in the world's courts. Yesterday, the results on this front were mixed.
In Boston, a federal grand jury unsealed a seven-count indictment charging Saajid Badat with attempted murder and other charges related to an alleged conspiracy with Richard Reid, the al-Qaida member who attempted to use a shoe bomb to blow up an American Airlines flight in December, 2001.
Badat allegedly got his "custom-made" shoe bombs in al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan. The Boston Herald reports that Badat attended the North London mosque linked to Zacharias Moussaoui in Gloucester. Law enforcement officials are quoted as saying that small amounts of explosives were found in Badat's home and a stray hair of Badat's was found in Reid's shoe bomb.
Meanwhile, in Turin on Tuesday, a five-year sentence imposed on Ibraim Ellaban, an Egyptian national linked to al-Qaeda, has been set aside by an appeals court judge. Ellaban was arrested after Scotland Yard found references to him in the address book of a suspected terrorist. In Ellaban's trial, the prosecution read several letters, allegedly written by Osama Bin Laden, that called for members of his al-Qaida network to acquire weapons of mass destruction and urging them to "kill, fight, create traps and destroy" Americans. ("Bin Laden letters order US massacre," Philip Willan and Nick Hopkins, The Guardian, October 18, 2001).
In an April 16, 1998 letter, released during Ellaban's trial, Bin Laden is reported to say: "America carries out the worst international terrorism. Is it not terrible terrorism that America is carrying out in Iraq on children, women and the old, having condemned them to hunger?"
Interesting that Bin Laden should adopt the talking points of Saddam Hussein. Interesting too that the Ba'athist Iraqi regime would celebrate al-Qaeda's attacks on the twin towers in a mural on the Iraqi military headquarters of Nasiriyah.
Plainly, a purely legal response to terror will not protect the United States from the coalition of groups that are waging jihad against the West. Yet, the issue has not quite been joined in the election debates. The Kerry campaign professes support for a warlike response to terror while presuming a juridical test of legitimacy.
In the debate last night, Vice President Cheney opened with the case that Iraq was an ally of al-Qaeda:
Senator Edwards shifted the focus from that broader context to the narrower legalistic question of whether Saddam Hussein was involved in the operational planning of the September 11 attacks. His sound-bite line was: "There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th -- period."
If one agrees that the legitimate response to 9/11 is warlike, then it is important that one leave the question of prosecution of individual criminal acts to the courts and adopt a foreign policy that takes the broader view that those allied with the enemies of our country are our enemies also. A question for Senators Edwards and Kerry to ponder: after Pearl Harbor, would the United States have been justified in declaring war on Nazi Germany, Japan's ally, had Hitler not declared war on the U.S. first?
While the controversy over Bush's Doctrine continues, the legal response to terror continues in the world's courts. Yesterday, the results on this front were mixed.
In Boston, a federal grand jury unsealed a seven-count indictment charging Saajid Badat with attempted murder and other charges related to an alleged conspiracy with Richard Reid, the al-Qaida member who attempted to use a shoe bomb to blow up an American Airlines flight in December, 2001.
Badat allegedly got his "custom-made" shoe bombs in al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan. The Boston Herald reports that Badat attended the North London mosque linked to Zacharias Moussaoui in Gloucester. Law enforcement officials are quoted as saying that small amounts of explosives were found in Badat's home and a stray hair of Badat's was found in Reid's shoe bomb.
Meanwhile, in Turin on Tuesday, a five-year sentence imposed on Ibraim Ellaban, an Egyptian national linked to al-Qaeda, has been set aside by an appeals court judge. Ellaban was arrested after Scotland Yard found references to him in the address book of a suspected terrorist. In Ellaban's trial, the prosecution read several letters, allegedly written by Osama Bin Laden, that called for members of his al-Qaida network to acquire weapons of mass destruction and urging them to "kill, fight, create traps and destroy" Americans. ("Bin Laden letters order US massacre," Philip Willan and Nick Hopkins, The Guardian, October 18, 2001).
In an April 16, 1998 letter, released during Ellaban's trial, Bin Laden is reported to say: "America carries out the worst international terrorism. Is it not terrible terrorism that America is carrying out in Iraq on children, women and the old, having condemned them to hunger?"
Interesting that Bin Laden should adopt the talking points of Saddam Hussein. Interesting too that the Ba'athist Iraqi regime would celebrate al-Qaeda's attacks on the twin towers in a mural on the Iraqi military headquarters of Nasiriyah.
Plainly, a purely legal response to terror will not protect the United States from the coalition of groups that are waging jihad against the West. Yet, the issue has not quite been joined in the election debates. The Kerry campaign professes support for a warlike response to terror while presuming a juridical test of legitimacy.
In the debate last night, Vice President Cheney opened with the case that Iraq was an ally of al-Qaeda:
It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the broader context of the global war on terror. And, after 9/11, it became clear that we had to do several things to have a successful strategy to win the global war on terror, specifically that we had to go after the terrorists where ever we might find them, that we also had to go after state sponsors of terror, those who might provide sanctuary or safe harbor for terror.
...Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director's testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship.
Senator Edwards shifted the focus from that broader context to the narrower legalistic question of whether Saddam Hussein was involved in the operational planning of the September 11 attacks. His sound-bite line was: "There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th -- period."
If one agrees that the legitimate response to 9/11 is warlike, then it is important that one leave the question of prosecution of individual criminal acts to the courts and adopt a foreign policy that takes the broader view that those allied with the enemies of our country are our enemies also. A question for Senators Edwards and Kerry to ponder: after Pearl Harbor, would the United States have been justified in declaring war on Nazi Germany, Japan's ally, had Hitler not declared war on the U.S. first?
Labels: Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Al-Qa'idah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaida, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, jihadists, John Edwards, John Kerry, Osama bin Laden, Richard Reid, September 11
Friday, October 01, 2004
The Global Test
John Kerry: But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
In the debate last night, President Bush pursued his campaign's primary strategy of portraying his opponent as a flip-flopper. On the evening's central topic of Iraq, the charge was not difficult to establish.
In his toughest question to Senator Kerry, the moderator Jim Lehrer reminded him of his 1971 congressional testimony in which he famously asked a rhetorical question: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Lehrer pointedly asked whether the Iraq war was a mistake. Kerry quickly responded "No," but then neglected to explain how he could reconcile this response with his new "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" position.
Kerry was intent, of course, to deny that he had been inconsistent on Iraq: "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat." The line had been carefully crafted: he later uttered it again, verbatim. His defense of his own consistency reached record levels of risibility when he made a categorically absolute declaration: "I've never wavered in my life." There is irony in repeated and sweeping avowals of one's own consistency. A central result of mathematical logic, proven by Kurt Gödel, establishes that a sure way to guarantee the inconsistency of a rich deductive logical system of propositions is to have that system assert its own consistency!
That Kerry has been conspicuously inconsistent on the question of Iraq raises the question of whether the man has any core beliefs or whether he is simply afraid to share them. The debate provided reason to accept the second alternative.
In response to an excellent question by Jim Lehrer regarding America's right of preemptive action against terror, a question that this space had openly hoped would be put to Kerry at the debate, Kerry responded: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Bush took the opportunity to seize on Kerry's response, and made a rare but effective counter-punch:
Kerry showed himself to be deeply skeptical of Bush's certain faith that America has the high moral ground. Kerry complained: "We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons,' but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using." It apparently does not dawn on Kerry that America can be trusted to do what is right and to accomplish good in the world, but that North Korea and Iran cannot be similarly trusted. That possibility does not even rise to the level of being acknowledged by Kerry. Why not? The doubts expressed in his closing worry that certainty can "get you into trouble" suggests that he adopts the moral skepticism, if not cynicism, characteristic of the civilization-weary sophisticates on the left and of those who regard moral certainty as naive at best and dangerous at worst.
How then is a U.S. President to lead in a world in which jihadists drive passenger jets into buildings and carry out gruesome beheadings? Kerry's plan: have a summit, share our reasons, listen to the objections of the other side. In the post-modern world of Kerry, what passes for moral objectivity is no more than the notion of truth propounded by philosopher Richard Rorty: what others "will let us get away with" in a conversation. The global test is consensus and Kerry's plan to reach it is this: just talk.
In the debate last night, President Bush pursued his campaign's primary strategy of portraying his opponent as a flip-flopper. On the evening's central topic of Iraq, the charge was not difficult to establish.
In his toughest question to Senator Kerry, the moderator Jim Lehrer reminded him of his 1971 congressional testimony in which he famously asked a rhetorical question: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Lehrer pointedly asked whether the Iraq war was a mistake. Kerry quickly responded "No," but then neglected to explain how he could reconcile this response with his new "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" position.
Kerry was intent, of course, to deny that he had been inconsistent on Iraq: "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat." The line had been carefully crafted: he later uttered it again, verbatim. His defense of his own consistency reached record levels of risibility when he made a categorically absolute declaration: "I've never wavered in my life." There is irony in repeated and sweeping avowals of one's own consistency. A central result of mathematical logic, proven by Kurt Gödel, establishes that a sure way to guarantee the inconsistency of a rich deductive logical system of propositions is to have that system assert its own consistency!
That Kerry has been conspicuously inconsistent on the question of Iraq raises the question of whether the man has any core beliefs or whether he is simply afraid to share them. The debate provided reason to accept the second alternative.
In response to an excellent question by Jim Lehrer regarding America's right of preemptive action against terror, a question that this space had openly hoped would be put to Kerry at the debate, Kerry responded: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Bush took the opportunity to seize on Kerry's response, and made a rare but effective counter-punch:
"I'm not exactly sure what you mean, 'passes the global test,' you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."
Kerry showed himself to be deeply skeptical of Bush's certain faith that America has the high moral ground. Kerry complained: "We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons,' but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using." It apparently does not dawn on Kerry that America can be trusted to do what is right and to accomplish good in the world, but that North Korea and Iran cannot be similarly trusted. That possibility does not even rise to the level of being acknowledged by Kerry. Why not? The doubts expressed in his closing worry that certainty can "get you into trouble" suggests that he adopts the moral skepticism, if not cynicism, characteristic of the civilization-weary sophisticates on the left and of those who regard moral certainty as naive at best and dangerous at worst.
How then is a U.S. President to lead in a world in which jihadists drive passenger jets into buildings and carry out gruesome beheadings? Kerry's plan: have a summit, share our reasons, listen to the objections of the other side. In the post-modern world of Kerry, what passes for moral objectivity is no more than the notion of truth propounded by philosopher Richard Rorty: what others "will let us get away with" in a conversation. The global test is consensus and Kerry's plan to reach it is this: just talk.
Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq, jihadists, John Kerry, nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein
Sunday, September 19, 2004
The Politics of Preemption
Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.
John F. Kerry July 29, 2004.
That line in Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention occasioned notice. Was Kerry implying that he will cede the next move to the terrorists? Can the Democrat reject the right of preemptive action, thereby placating his base on the left, while trying to make the appeal to swing voters that he stands for a stronger America?
The issue was joined this week in Australia, where Prime Minister John Howard criticized his election opponent Mark Latham for ruling out preemptive strikes against terrorist targets in Southeast Asia. Howard has said he would order preemptive strikes in neighboring countries if he learned that a terrorist organization such as Jemaah Islamiyah was planning an attack on Australia. Jemaah Islamiyah had killed nine people outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta just this last month and the same group was responsible for the October 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202.
Labor Party leader Latham, asked what his approach to terror in the region would be, said: "We've rejected Mr. Howard's notion of preemption, extended preemption. You need to do things in cooperation with our neighbors.... There's obviously sovereignty issues involved with that question, our approach is diplomacy, cooperation with our neighbors."
Howard sounded an alarm: "The question was 'If you knew there was going to be an attack on Australia, would you be willing to act to stop it?' What other answer can an Australian prime minister give than to give that answer? I'm amazed that Mr Latham didn't give the same answer as I gave." (AFX News, Asia, September 19, 2004)
In the United States meanwhile, as Kerry continues to avoid press conferences and news interviews, U.S. voters may have to await the debates for clarification of his views about preemptive action against terrorism.
John F. Kerry July 29, 2004.
That line in Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention occasioned notice. Was Kerry implying that he will cede the next move to the terrorists? Can the Democrat reject the right of preemptive action, thereby placating his base on the left, while trying to make the appeal to swing voters that he stands for a stronger America?
The issue was joined this week in Australia, where Prime Minister John Howard criticized his election opponent Mark Latham for ruling out preemptive strikes against terrorist targets in Southeast Asia. Howard has said he would order preemptive strikes in neighboring countries if he learned that a terrorist organization such as Jemaah Islamiyah was planning an attack on Australia. Jemaah Islamiyah had killed nine people outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta just this last month and the same group was responsible for the October 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202.
Labor Party leader Latham, asked what his approach to terror in the region would be, said: "We've rejected Mr. Howard's notion of preemption, extended preemption. You need to do things in cooperation with our neighbors.... There's obviously sovereignty issues involved with that question, our approach is diplomacy, cooperation with our neighbors."
Howard sounded an alarm: "The question was 'If you knew there was going to be an attack on Australia, would you be willing to act to stop it?' What other answer can an Australian prime minister give than to give that answer? I'm amazed that Mr Latham didn't give the same answer as I gave." (AFX News, Asia, September 19, 2004)
In the United States meanwhile, as Kerry continues to avoid press conferences and news interviews, U.S. voters may have to await the debates for clarification of his views about preemptive action against terrorism.
Labels: Australia, Bali, Jemaah Islamiyah, John Howard, John Kerry
Friday, September 17, 2004
Kerry's Complicated Iraqi War Plan
Over the remaining weeks of the campaign, I thought I'd try to keep track of Kerry's positions on Iraq. So, just for the record, here are some of the choice excerpts from his Wednesday radio/cable network interview with Don Imus.
IMUS: What is this plan you have?
KERRY: Well, the plan gets more complicated every single day because the president...
IMUS: Try to simplify it for me so I can understand it.
KERRY: I'm going to just tell you why.
IMUS: OK.
KERRY: Because about -- I can't remember whether it's -- several months ago, I said, "This may the president's last chance to get it right in Iraq." That's what I said. And I said, as Joe Biden did and others did, "Mr. President, you've got to lead. You've got to get the international community at the table." The president has never done that. Now it's obviously, with the situation on the ground, much more complicated; I have to acknowledge that. It is more complicated. But I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community....
IMUS: But it sounds -- that may or may not be a good plan, but meanwhile, we had three soldiers dead in Iraq yesterday and how many die before -- wind up over there in the rehab room at Walter Reed before a plan like this kicks into effect? Also, I was talking to...
KERRY: Well, Don, I realize that, but the fact is that the president is the president. I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America? I mean, he is the president today, and we have given him advice from day one; from day one, from the floor of the Senate when we debated it where I said don't -- you know, you've got to have other countries with you, don't make an end runaround the U.N., the difficulty is not winning the military, it's winning the peace; and he ignored it....
IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.
KERRY: That's correct. But I can't....
IMUS: Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq -- any?
KERRY: Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see.
IMUS: What is this plan you have?
KERRY: Well, the plan gets more complicated every single day because the president...
IMUS: Try to simplify it for me so I can understand it.
KERRY: I'm going to just tell you why.
IMUS: OK.
KERRY: Because about -- I can't remember whether it's -- several months ago, I said, "This may the president's last chance to get it right in Iraq." That's what I said. And I said, as Joe Biden did and others did, "Mr. President, you've got to lead. You've got to get the international community at the table." The president has never done that. Now it's obviously, with the situation on the ground, much more complicated; I have to acknowledge that. It is more complicated. But I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community....
IMUS: But it sounds -- that may or may not be a good plan, but meanwhile, we had three soldiers dead in Iraq yesterday and how many die before -- wind up over there in the rehab room at Walter Reed before a plan like this kicks into effect? Also, I was talking to...
KERRY: Well, Don, I realize that, but the fact is that the president is the president. I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America? I mean, he is the president today, and we have given him advice from day one; from day one, from the floor of the Senate when we debated it where I said don't -- you know, you've got to have other countries with you, don't make an end runaround the U.N., the difficulty is not winning the military, it's winning the peace; and he ignored it....
IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.
KERRY: That's correct. But I can't....
IMUS: Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq -- any?
KERRY: Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see.
Labels: Don Imus, Iraq, John Kerry
main page
most recent entries
- The sting of 'cling'
- Finding Iran's long-range missile site in Google E...
- Southern Iraqi Shiite tribal leader claims Iran be...
- Rice for the Vice?
- A stash of FARC's uranium found in Columbia
- Is Condi Rice signaling an interest in being McCai...
- Saddam Hussein's regime plotted with Gaza terroris...
- An unapologetic apologia for the Iraq war
- Romanian rendezvous; Terrorists and arms dealers i...
- Saddam's support for terror: the Pentagon report's...
archives
blogs
feeds
searches
statistics
buttons
Blogroll Me!
