F*ckin' A! I read that and didn't even notice. Congrats dude.
I guess that tops the Hugh Hewitt link....

... but I'll get you next week. And that little dog too!

Serious disagreements is right, and I think these two men merely fed the red meat to their bases. I see no poll movement as a result of tonight's festivities.

You make some good points JK but how exactly does one make a logical rebuttal to the arguments of a man who says, "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind." Donkey party partisans are systematically afflicted by the wealth redistribution / government regulation kool-aid they've been fed for seventy years. "How many more damn tax cuts do we have to endure," you can hear them wailing.

Two more things:

1) Yes, JG, Senator Edwards played to form. When VP Cheney was asked about jobs, he talked about tax incentives and education. Sunshine's witty rejoinder was "You asked about jobs, right?" Amazed that education and incentives were linked to jobs at all. How about a "jobs program" run by the Feds?

2) Style point. Senators K & E have more than 25 years Senate tenure beween them. The only shining moment they could point to? A good performance in a debate. "As John Kerry said so forcefully in the debate last Thursday..." That's all they have. The dude won one debate.

Yikes, doom and gloom Cheney is the optimist?

A couple of points I noticed from the other side of the aisle:

1) Mr. Cheney, if you are going to pretend to be the factual one by debunking Edwards' claims it would be best to not throw a bald faced lie into the mix - "never claimed a connection between Osama and Saddam"? Mr. Russert, could you roll the tapes please? - Again!! Sub point, if you are now going to claim the newly trained Iraqi forces as part of the coalition to reduce the percentage of US casualties why not use all the civilian casualties to lower it down below 25%, or maybe you can now claim 5 million or so Iraqis that support the US forces so that we only make up 5% of the coalition while you are at it?

2)Credibility and record: If you are going to look that hard at the two senator's careers you better look at you own record for the last 4 years. You and Rumsfeld were key in limiting the number of troops in Iraq, discarding the counsel of all the military experts who cautioned against letting lawlessness take hold because of the extreme trouble in reigning it back in after it starts. But then again you both predicted that the only thing the Iraqi people would throw at our troops would be rose petals. Take a close look at Afghanistan before you claim victory there as well. Only the capital really enjoys a democratic security, much of the rest of the country is run by the old warlords. Again we took out the corrupt power and left a vacuum behind to be filled by whomever could step up first.

I love my country, believe in its ideals, beleive in the concept of spreading these ideals to others, but cannot fathom the conceit/naivete'/idiocy that flows in the minds of those who plan these military campaigns. Bringing freedom and democracy to the world, especially to those who have not known it before IS ABOUT NATION BUILDING! It doesn't get any purer or simpler than that, something even our straight shootin' cowboy of a president should be able to understand. The security we gain from this nation building is directly related to how well we do the job, how is it we cannot figure this out? The problem is this administration, who cannot/will not fathom the complexity and differences of other societies, learn and understand them and plan the rebuilding of a democratic nation accordingly. I can accept that this is hard to do (hat tip to Mr Bush) but refusing to see problems, move to correct them, plan better and in general learn anything at all leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the current administration receives a failing grade and deserves to be replaced come November.

Silence,

Last point first: it's certainly a valid argument to say that Iraq is a failure and sufficient reason to “throw the bums out” come November. I disagree.

First point second: don't mistake a sunny smile for optimism. Senator Edwards sees "Two Americas," shrinking wages, uninsured children, and chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Things are bad and it's going to take government action to fix it.

VP Cheney sees 40% of Afghani women registered to vote, Iraqi defense forces beating recruitment targets, and Allawi's inchoate interim government making some progress with security and reconstruction.

I'll say today's Iraq is the proverbial half glass of water. Yes there's much emptiness to see. But I recall a status quo of Saddam's Iraq less fondly than some. The marshes were drained, children's prisons were in operation for Ba'athist opponents who were young, and mass graves for those who were not. Corrupt U.N. dealings were funding palaces and terrorists while people starved. British and American planes were shot at while protecting no-fly zones. Kerry and Edwards think we should have given this a little more time.

It's impossible to get a clear idea of the situation there. You're convinced it's chaos, the Mainstream Media agree. I read the soldiers' blogs and Belmont Club and see a rosy scenario. Which is real? Both -- it's half empty and half full.

Cheney and President Bush are optimists for seeing two budding free nations. Optimists for seeing a domestic economic recovery that is real.

My point is that Kerry and Edwards have to convince people that things are bad to win, and realize that good news is bad news for their candidacy. That's tough.

Third point third: likewise, there are good and bad points about more troops. Most of the columnists I read would love to see a Dem presidential candidate come out fulsomely for more troops, more firepower, and less squeamishness about religious sites. But we have Senator Kerry. If you want more troops or an immediate pullout, you do not have a choice this year. Ergo, Senator Edwards record is an incomplete single Senate term, missed votes, no signature legislation, a failed bid for the Dem Presidential nomination. VP Cheney has a long a distinguished record of public service plus executive success in the private sector. I’ll take that comparison all day.

Second point fourth: The administration has rightfully claimed a link between Iraq and terrorism, and Iraq and al-Qaeda. They have NOT claimed a link between Iraq and 9-11. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we entered WWII in Tunisia. Eisenhower said “if a problem is intractable, enlarge it.” That’s my new line, it works in a lot of places: business, software … The al-Qaeda problem is intractable; the global war on terror is not.

OK Silence, let's have the quote. All of Russert's transcripts have got to be available on the web somewhere. A factual challenge without factual evidence is like Edwards saying, "I don't care what the Vice President says, it's 200 billion in Iraq, and climbing." Sure John, whatever you say.

Are you suggesting that Iraqi civilians are as effective in routing insurgents as the "newly trained Iraqi forces?" The reviews I've seen are quite complimentary of the new uniformed Iraqi army units. And if they've suffered close to the casualties we have, in significantly fewer engagements, then I'd say we'd be pretty damned insensitive to dis_count them. (And I don't believe that is one of their 'cultural values' either.)

I'm perplexed by the new criticisms of our military efforts. In the old days we used to criticize leaders who LOST wars. Now we criticise them for WINNING them wrong. Repeat after me: "Everything after defeating the enemy is gravy. 'Nation building' is our GIFT to defeated enemies, not our obligation."

You are critical of Bush's efforts to solve problems in postwar Iraq, but fail to recognize and give credit for all of the problems that NEVER materialized. Like the food riots, or mass refugee movements, or complete economic collapse. By the standards you espouse we can't even 'win the peace' in large American cities like Detroit, Los Angeles, and even Denver after a major sports championship!

The WaPo "debate referee" holds with Silence:

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center."

And a year ago, also on "Meet the Press," Cheney described Iraq as part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Not quite. Atta and Usama are different men. We know the administration pressed the intelligence agencies to find a direct link from Saddam to Usama, but the closest they could get was Atta.

If Cheney could document, or even insinuate (which I suppose the Atta connection amounts to) a link to Usama I expect he would claim the connection existed. I also expect that such evidence would not be traceable to a Kinko's in Abilene.

Hmm, is Iraq a war unto iself or a battle in the war on terror? Given ALL the reasons listed for invading Iraq I come away with the perception that it is the later. As such, nation building is battle #2 in the ongoing war. Winning only battle #1 leaves you without a strategic gain. To me the obvious truth here is that winning in the war on terrorism will require lots of warm fuzzy stuff like nation building, economic aid to provide educational options to the Madrassahs, and work to nudge nations along toward free market democracy. Bush and Co. are very good at the hard nosed initial work of military action and seem uninterested and poor at the second part from which real long term security will come. (Case in point of China, the soft line stance so derided by the hard line folks is working) Hunting down terrorists in a pre-emptive fashion is more proactive than sitting back and guarding our borders and counter attacking after the fact, but less proactive than working toward a world where fewer people hate us. Some of the hate is fundamentally based on society and religion and will always exist regardless of our actions, but not all of it and thus painting the picture so simply allows us to pretend there is nothing more we can do. Winning this war and providing a safer world for our children will ultimately require a lot more carrots than sticks.

The glass may be half full JK, but I fear we knocked it over and cracked it and it is leaking badly. Cheney's assertion in the debate last night that if he had it to do over he would do the same thing does not give me confidence that this is the crew I want running the show for the next go around. Admission of error is so ingrained as a sign of weakness in these folks that I doubt they will ever be able to learn better methods. Steadfast resolve to a bad idea is not a good quality trait.

Are 40% of Afghani women really registered to vote, or are 20% registered twice? Having elections at all is an accomplishment, but having an accomplishment does not preclude you from trying to improve. The "thoughtfullness" of this president comes across as "done with that, what's next", no second thoughts, no reconsidering, no adaption to changing events. Our military leaders have learned all about fleixibility in weapons and tactics, now we wait for our political leaders to catch up.

Thanks JK for finding that Meet the Press info for me, saved me a bunch of web searching. I remember two, interesting that there was a even a third.

Hey, how 'bout them Broncos winning a game? Just thought I would add a little levity, discussions getting intense, must be an election coming! Congrats also on your Best of the Web listing, hopefully it won't attract just conservatives to help beat up on me, but maybe a liberal or two?

You've made an excellent segue into my latest posting: Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, above.

As far as whether people "hate us," I really don't care so long as they fear us at the same time. The cause of their hate is our liberty and prosperity. It's the class envy politics of the Democrat party on an international scale.

You are free to hate me because I own a (m o r t g a g e d) home and acreage, have two trucks, three cars, a D V D recorder and a wife who's free to not only go out in public with her face unconcealed but has the same legal status as a man. But if you come to my home and threaten me with bodily harm I will do everything within my power to kill you. I expect nothing less from my government when international outlaws are involved.

No, you cannot crack, tip or spill my metaphorical glass. There IS a lot of encouraging news out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The media don't report it, saying "they don't report the planes that don't crash."

There's some truth to that but as Virginia Postrel points out, there should be more "feature" reporting out of Iraq. The Spirit of America stuff, Iraqi youth baseball, and the like would make heartwarming warm-fuzzy-puppy-kinda news footage that serves the news media as well.

With all due respect, Silence, you ignore/discard/disbelieve all the good news; that's no better than blindly believing everything is great. It is difficult to find the truth -- because everybody has an agenda for presenting one side. But read some Iraqi blogs and SoA and Belmont Club.

I try to keep my contributions to this blog to philosophical subjects and how they relate to politics. We have sufficient political junkies around here without my 2 cents worth. The philosophical description of what Silence is doing is called context dropping.

Silence is entirely correct that this administration, "receives a failing grade and deserves to be replaced in November." However, that is taken without sufficient context and is therefore only half of the equation. Unfortunately, the only alternative available is the Kedwards ticket and that would be quite a bit worse than our current administration.

The basically socialist domestic policies and outsourcing of our defense to the United Nations proposed by senators Spitball and Sunshine represent a much greater threat to our nation than the bungling of the Bush administration. It is not a question of whether Bush is doing it right but a question of whether there is any chance Kerry can do it better. The logical conclusion is that he will not or cannot and therefore to replace Bush with Kerry would be a big mistake.

In 2008 we will have another chance to start from scratch and get it right.

Dagny, I was not completely dropping the context of who I would thus have to vote for. While Senator Kerry does not have my ringing endorsement, I do believe he and Edwards would be a better choice. I beleive the debate over this apparent giving of our sovereign decisions over to the UN is entirely academic, highlighted and vilified by the Republicans. Think back 4 years and decided if George Bush is the man you would have picked first for President to handle the global war on terror. Most if not all of his supporters considered foreign policy his weakest point. Now he is heralded as the man in charge on the world stage. I still consider those minutes in the Florida classroom (and many moments of fumbling during the first debate) as very indicative of a man who cannot think quickly on his feet. As it turns out, events were already unfolding and a group of brave passengers over Pennsylvania had taken matters into their own hands, but the lingering doubt is what if quick action had been required to save lives? For all the lies, implications, and inuendos surrounding Kerry's military service you cannot take away that he was not a leader who acted quickly and decisively in battle. He is a man of intelligence, thoughtful, analytical (perhaps to a fault) and diplomatic, all things I beleive Bush is not.

JK, I do know there are good things happening in Iraq, and I am not without hope for the future of the country. When I look to elect my new President however, I am looking toward what would we do next time if a similar situation came up, not just how do we finish out the current situation. There lies my trouble with the current administration, I don't think they have learned some valuable lessons that would let us do better next time. The glass is half full, but could easily have been 3/4 full with a different strategy. No one can say for sure what might have been, but there were quite a few people who predicted some of our trouble, and many more who saw it unfolding and suggested course corrections to compensate. Again back to that ability to analyze and adjust that has not been the strong suit of this administration. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Co. seem more intent on trying to prove they are right than on getting it right.

JohnGalt, how do you make people who look forward to martyrdom afraid of you? What can you take away from a nebulous group with no land, no centralized resources, no high value targets?

Truth control continued:

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Obviously a shot at the many Senate abscences Edwards' Presidential and now VP campaigns have caused. But why go to the extreme to lie that they had never met? The AP reports:

On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.

On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."

On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator.

Ditto for Kerry and Edwards subsequent claim of the $200 billion current price tag for Iraq, a much discredited number. Or Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia. Some times I wonder if any of these guys are smart enough to hold office. With today's access to information why do they still think they can say whatever they want to whomever they want and think nobody will call them on it?

Yeah, and I've seen pictures. Perhaps meeting the Senator in person is not so memorable...

No no no no no no no no no no! Senator Kerry stands for greater internationalization, multilateralism, and global cooperation on the war on terror. Unless he is going to dismantle the UN (he'd have my vote!) that means giving a veto to the Security Council -- and that means giving a de facto veto to France and Russia.

Senator Kerry says "I will not give a veto..." but he also says "we need a real coalition," "we can't go it alone," and (sorry, gotta say it) "global test." This is a fundamental inconsistency he cannot explain.

Who is missing from the Iraqi coalition? Germany and France (and Russia. perhaps). They would make it a legitimate coalition. They ain't going, Senator, never were. They will not stand up to the political pressure at home nor the corrupt kickbackers in their own governments.

I'll concede "Flip flopper" is a campaign attack of sorts. The problem to me is pandering, not changing one's mind. But I will not concede that ceding authority to the UN is not a real and important issue. And one Senator Kerry is on the wrong side of.

Silence,

You make good points as usual. For instance. "If I oppose the war in Iraq, I should not re-elect the guys who made the decision to go. Fair, fair, fair.

Then you discredit yourself with the seven-minute reaction. Really, I love you bro, but I am disappointed with your bringing that "Mooreism" up.

You're wishing, I suppose, that he put on his flight suit, Commandeer an F102 and patrol the Eastern Seaboard? The heroes of Flight 93 had to act quickly. The leader of the free world had to choose a direction for freedom in the greatest interstice of our time. Seven of the most inconsequential minutes in the history of the world.

I have to disagree JK on the conclusion you draw that building better coalitions and ensuring national and global support for pre-emptive actions means giving the UN veto power. What I take away is that the reason all of our traditional allies were not on board is that we could not make a clear enough case, the reason also that many in this country could not be persuaded. This should be a warning sign for policy decisions as great as pre-emptive military action. Pre-emption by the way is a very large change in traditional US policy and I beleive has not been debated nearly enough. Will we support pre-emption by China against Taiwan, India against Pakistan, or Israel against one of its Arab neighbors? What would we require of other nations to gain our support for such action?

Yes, France and Germany were the most notably absent from the coalition, but there is another point here that I think is missed. If I can believe Mr. Cheney (a dubious propostion perhaps) then we have 30 nations in our current coalition. But what of the size of those contingents? Are we really counting coutries who send less than 100 troops? Even the partners we have in this coalition are not big supporters.

Yes, Kerry's problem is most certainly pandering, but drawing the conclusion that he would sacrifice the soveriegn control of our own defense to the UN is a politically motivated leap.

I didn't think of the seven minutes as "Mooreish", I still have not seen that movie. It does bother me though, something brought back by his stilted performance in the debate. Yes, those minutes were inconsequential, but no one knew that at the time. What reason did he have to believe given the information he then had that quick action or at least immediate access to command and control were not necessary? Cheney was left to make the shoot down decision. At a time of intense crisis our President was paralyzed, not by fear, but by an inability to quickly process information and think clearly.

I win a prize for posting the 20th comment, don't I?

JK, don't forget China in the 'veto US foreign policy' sweepstakes.

Silence asks, "What would we require of other nations to gain our support for [military pre-emption?]" The answer is the same thing we had before invading Iraq: The pre-empting state must be a free nation and if the pre-empted state is a dictatorship then any capability, intention or impression of a threat of force from them is complete justification. Our support for them can be moral or physical, at our choice and in our interests.

ANY effort to "build coalitions" and "persuade" other nations that we have a "clear enough case" for pre-emptive self-defense is not only wasted time, it is counter productive as it weakens our moral stance and emboldens our enemies. (Reread 'Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time' above.)

More to the point, however, is the qualification of Mr. Kerry to be President. He is not merely "analytical (perhaps to a fault.)" He is a rudderless ship in an ocean of ideas. His only objective is to somehow sail into power so that he can enforce collectivist economic policies! It doesn't matter to him how he gets there, what those policies are, or how much protection money we have to pay to foreign nations. As long as he gets to wage war on RICH people (the "right" rich people, of course) then he will consider his career a success.

I'm surprised nobody has made this observation yet, since it seems so obvious to me. Kerry and Co. claim, "Oh yeah? Well Bush is a flip-flopper too... see!" Changing one's mind may be characterized as a 'flip' but making repeatedly contradictory statements is what we call 'flip-flopping' and it shows that Kerry has no mind to change. At least not a rational mind, and a human without a rational mind may be regarded 'mindless' for absense of reason is only a natural state for animals.

21, going for a record. John Galt you base your belief that John Kerry is bent on waging war against rich people on what? I assume you mean ecomonic warfare, or socialist wealth re-distribution and not airstrikes against Beverly Hills. By the way, if John Kerry is THE most liberal senator, how do you define that? Is there an official ranking? Just out of curiousity, who is the most conservative?

Twenty-two with a bullet!!!

Who are these "traditional allies" that are not on board? Canada. A great ally to the U.S., I fear she has changed too much and that a very liberal and anti-American group has been able to dominate her government, as the Conservative vote is badly divided and improperly managed.

Sorry the canucks are not onboard, eh, and perhaps a smooth talking Europhile president might have gotten them. I think it's a long shot but I'll stipulate.

Are France and Germany "traditional allies?" Russia? China? Seems these folks are more what you'd call traditional enemies. Exigencies change.

Secondly, when Moldova sends 12 troops, you don't think that counts, or Macedonia's 28. Less than 100, and Silence says your not part of the coalition. Well, we still have 21 +100 partners according to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm Like Darth Cheney, I don't like to hear war opponents denigrate the allies. Go Tonga! Go Kazakhstan!

President Bush is an executive, that is his gift (not oratory...) I think a good plan is generally superior to a seven-minute-sooner reaction. Perhaps if Moore had not made such a big deal I'd be more open to its importance.

Many groups publish rankings of Senators by lib/cons. Kerry scored #1 in a National Journal ranking. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040227-111241-3716r.htm

Googling a bit, he is not consistently at #1, but he is consistently very liberal.

Don Nickles of OK and John Kyl of AZ usually score pretty high on the ACU listings.