We should "talk" to Iran because "It's working" with North Korea?!

I can't believe that anyone is so naive, but Ted Carpenter is. You'd think someone smart enough to be at Cato wouldn't have such foolish trust, but we can now rank Carpenter with Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Jimmy Carter.

Washington made little progress with the North Koreans until the United States ended its refusal to enter negotiations before they ceased all violations of the 1994 agreement, which was supposed to freeze their nuclear program. Eventually, the U.S. succumbed to pressure from China and East Asian allies and agreed to multilateral negotiations in the form of the six-party talks. But it has only been in the past six months or so that the United States has engaged in direct negotiations with North Korea.

North Korea made it perfectly clear last year: after the U.S. alone gave it millions of tons of food "aid" and countless joules of fuel, it was lying to us for 11 years while it pursued a nuclear weapons program. Why should we believe for a second that it's being straight with us now?

If we have the same success "talking" with Iran as we've had with North Korea, then God help us.

These talks were crucial to the breakthrough that has taken place, and they have involved far more than a narrow focus on the nuclear issue. Washington and Pyongyang are now considering such matters as the normalization of diplomatic and economic relations, the removal of North Korea from the State Department's list of states that sponsor terrorism, and a treaty to formally end the Korean War.

There's no breakthrough. Time and time again, U.S. diplomats have been suckered into "negotiations" that are merely the other side's way of stalling.

A U.S. diplomatic initiative involving Iran would require similar characteristics. Direct, high-level negotiations between Washington and Tehran — far more rigorous than the sporadic U.S.-Iranian talks on Iraq — would be imperative. A useful step would be for President Bush to appoint a prominent special envoy, perhaps former secretary of state James Baker, to represent the United States.

Iran loves this: it will buy them more time to build more centrifuges and acquire more technology.

Moreover, those negotiations would have to concern more than Iran's nuclear program or the future of Iraq. Indeed, they would need to encompass the entire range of U.S.-Iranian relations. Topics would have to include removal of U.S. and U.N. economic sanctions and the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, as well as the explicit end of Tehran's quest to build nuclear weapons.

Oh, and Iran will gladly renounce terrorism, including disarming and pulling funds from Hezbollah and other groups? I'm sure it will also offer to pay reparations to Western victims and their families.

I won't hold my breath for any results. Here's what will happen: o. Once sanctions are lifted, Iran will only appear to play nice. The red carpet will be rolled out in Tehran for any U.S. ambassador, and tokens of "friendship" will be exchanged. But behind the scenes, nothing will have changed.

One should have no illusions about such an initiative. The obstacles to success would be even greater than they have been with North Korea. Whereas North Korea is a small, impoverished state, Iran is a midsize power with considerable political and economic clout. And although Russia helps Iran with its nuclear program, it lacks the patronage power that China has exerted on its client North Korea.

Carpenter harbors his own illusion, namely this foolish trust that Iran will somehow play nice. He in fact debunks himself here, admitting that Iran has considerably greater means than North Korea to get what it wants. Why, then, should it bother "negotiating" when it can continue the status quo?

The nature of a resolution of the nuclear issue would also likely be different. North Korea has (at least in principle) agreed to give up its entire nuclear program in exchange for concessions from the United States, Japan and South Korea. It is unlikely that Tehran would agree to such a comprehensive de-nuclearization. Washington may have to accept that reality and focus on achieving sufficient international safeguards to ensure that material from a nuclear power program was not diverted to weapons production.

This is what you get when a libertarian tries to be "pragmatic" and accept "compromise." Compromise is great for the other side, and bad for you.

All of these obstacles are daunting, but if Washington does not adopt a strategy similar to its recent approach toward North Korea, it will soon face highly unpleasant options: accepting Iran as a nuclear-weapons state or launching military strikes to prevent that result.

It's worth trying diplomacy before we reach that point.

Or perhaps there are more choices than such stark ones, did Carpenter ever consider that?

What we do know is that if a neighbor once kidnapped your children, and this neighbor still funds groups that have killed some of your other children, and this neighbor has been perpetually hell-bent on acquiring an armory of assault rifles, then no matter how "reformed" he becomes, you should never trust him with so much as a Derringer. Maybe he can't blow your house to smithereens as he'd like, but one day you'll find yourself shot in the ass.

The New York Times damns McCain for being...liberal?

It's been observed by numerous people, from your regular blogger to well-known pundits, that McCain was once considered "Democrats' favorite Republican," but now that he's the nominee, he's suddenly the second coming of George W. Bush.

The New York Times already tried allegations that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. When those didn't stick, they tried the non-issue of questioning his citizenship and whether he's qualified to be president. That still didn't take hold, so what's left?

Well, instead of painting him as a secretly rabid conservative so that Democrats would be sure to vote against him, Frank Rich of the New York Times decided upon a different tactic: trying to discourage Republicans from voting for him, by painting him as "channeling his inner Hillary."

McCain isn't the most conservative. He's not even very conservative. But just because McCain isn't Rush Limbaugh choice (putting it mildly) doesn't mean McCain is horribly liberal. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who think Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, not to mention a hypocritical druggie/ex-druggie, and not always right like he thinks he is. And curiously enough, with Ann Coulter coming out against McCain as the GOP nominee, suddenly the NYT references her straightforwardly, not even implying but acting as if it's a given that she's right!

If Jonathan Chait of the TNR is so sure that McCain is so liberal, then let him put his vote where his mouth is, and vote for McCain in November. Is he willing to vote for McCain's "liberal" agendas on "immigration, campaign-finance reform, stem-cell research, global warming, oil drilling in Alaska, waterboarding, Gitmo," when a vote for McCain means a vote for a very anti-liberal platform of -- gasp -- Bush-style tax cuts, except this time coupled with the promise of pork-cutting? Is Chait going to vote for McCain, who said he's willing to keep American forces in Iraq for as long as is necessary, even if it means 100 years?

What Rich and Chait conveniently ignore is that McCain was right on "the surge." The American military toppled Saddam's army with ease, but it was unprepared to deal with the aftermath until McCain's strategy of the surge. I opposed sending more troops, not because I opposed the principle of the surge, but because I believed we already had the numbers for it: McCain's strategy wasn't so much about the numbers as it was about redoubling efforts to fight the insurgents.

But how come so many Americans disagree with McCain? And note that Rich has switched gears: in the same article, suddenly McCain isn't painted as Hillary-liberal, but too pro-war for the American public! Well, despite Rich's claim, "only 43 percent of Americans see an upturn in Iraq" is not contradictory with "the majority of Americans believe the surge is succeeding." When it comes to the war and fishing for anti-Bush poll numbers, the Democrats' news allies (CNN, CBS et al) for the last few years have resorted to asking exceedingly complex questions, full of nuance. Thus a majority of Americans can believe that the surge is working to root out insurgents, but a majority can also see that Iraq isn't getting better overall. Key words are often omitted as needed to advance the agenda behind the "news story."

Another example is, "Do you believe the country is going in the right direction?" Polls for months have proclaimed things like, "A majority of Americans think the country is headed down the wrong road." Someone like me would agree the country is not in the right direction, but for a very different reason than your typical Democrat. Yet on the same poll, we'd be giving the same answer.

Rich maintains,

Though Mr. McCain maintains that Republicans were routed in the 2006 midterms because of Congressional overspending and corruption, that’s wishful thinking. With all due respect to Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff and the bridge to nowhere, that election was mostly a repudiation of a war that was as unpopular then as it is on the eve of its fifth anniversary in 2008.

Rich is making too much out of only one factor. Iraq was a factor in 2006, but not as much as 2004 when John Kerry kept pushing it as "the wrong war in the wrong place in the wrong time." Conservatives like Thomas Sowell and, yes, Rush Limbaugh, have explained that Republicans in 2006 tried to be so middle-of-the-road that they were beaten by centrist (even conservative), populist Democrats. My former Congressman Sue Kelly portrayed herself as "independent," environmentalist and even slightly liberal. What happened? She lost to a genuine liberal, John Hall, who's so extreme that he wants to impeach Bush and Cheney mainly so that Nancy Pelosi can become President. Add to that the anti-war crowd and constant news stories of GOP corruption (released as close to the elections as possible without arousing too much cynicism), and that's why the GOP lost control of Congress.

So far we have obfuscation, deceit, and historical revisionism. Add to that a complete misrepresentation of something McCain said, and you have a New York Times op-ed. "Mr. McCain was reduced to arguing that such annoying little details are out of bounds because they belong to 'the past'" is a willful misquote of what McCain really said. McCain never said "annoying little details," meaning Rich put words into McCain's mouth (a common liberal trick), and his reference to "the past" was to point out that Obama is campaigning on what we should have done then (i.e. moot) rather than telling us what he thinks we should do now. And so what if McCain's "'what we are going to do now' in Iraq is merely more of what he did then"? One should respect that McCain is sticking to his belief, rather than flip-flopping like Hillary has on Iraq.

Rich mentioned in passing, "the Vietnam War hero Jim Webb," but hypocritically didn't extend the same to McCain. And strangely enough, other liberals like Gloria Steinem, having hypocritically forgotten John Kerry's biggest self-promotion act in 2004, have claimed that McCain's POW status isn't a qualification for the presidency, notwithstanding McCain hasn't claimed that!

But Rich's misrepresentation doesn't end yet:

Since the mere mention of Iraq is dangerous to Mr. McCain's and Mrs. Clinton’s claims about the exalted value of their experience, they have countered by trying to portray Mr. Obama as a foreign policy moron. They’ve even alighted on the identical bogus charge, accusing him of threatening to recklessly bomb our dear ally Pakistan. What Mr. Obama actually said last summer was that he would go after Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan’s mountains when there was actionable intelligence even if a recalcitrant President Musharraf refused to act.

As with his early opposition to the Iraq war, Mr. Obama has proved to be prescient once more. His Pakistan stance anticipated both the latest Bush administration policy — the C.I.A. killed the senior Qaeda commander Abu Laith al-Libi in just such a unilateral strike within Pakistan in late January — and Mr. McCain's own campaign posture. When Mr. McCain promises to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell," he too is vowing to go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan without restraint.

Obama is a foreign policy moron. While the U.S. would be justified in pursuing terrorists across a border, even and especially a friendly nation's border, that action must yield to the bigger picture. It's been pointed out for a long time now that if the U.S. simply bombed a part of Pakistan, it would destabilize Musharraf's government. Musharraf isn't the nicest guy on the planet, granted, but if he lost control of the government, imagine Pakistan's nukes in the hands of Islamic extremists after a coup d'etat? It's that sort of multi-step reasoning, not dissimilar from looking several moves forward in a chess game, that evades Obama.

In desperation to land some knockout punch, some McCain supporters, following the precedent of Clinton surrogates, are already invoking Mr. Obama’s race, middle name and tourist snapshot in Somali dress to smear his patriotism. The idea is to make him a Manchurian candidate, a closet anti-Semitic jihadist trained in a madrassa run by, say, Louis Farrakhan.

Journalism, even op-ed writing, still cannot take liberty with the facts. What actually happened is that while Obama smartly distanced himself from the anti-Semitic Farrakhan, McCain likewise distanced himself from the Tennessee GOP that released the photo of Obama in Somalian dress. You have both Hillary supporters and Republicans who are indeed trying to portray Obama as secretly Muslim, and so long as the official campaigns aren't doing anything, there really isn't anything the candidates can do to stop it.

On a side note, Obama allegedly being a Muslim secret in secret is to the point that my family in London, who see all around them what British Muslims are doing, think Obama really is a closet Muslim. A lot of Brits are wary of anyone who even harbors sympathy toward Muslims, including the current Archbishop of Canterbury.

What repeatedly goes unrecognized by all of Mr. Obama’s opponents is that his political Kryptonite is the patriotism he offers in lieu of theirs. His upbeat notion of a yes-we-can national mobilization for the common good, however saccharine, speaks to the pride and idealism of Americans who are bone-weary of a patriotism defined exclusively by flag lapel pins, the fear of terrorism and the prospect of perpetual war.

Rich has a strange concept of "patriotism." Is it really people chanting "O-Ba-Ma! O-Ba-Ma!" like you'd expect at a Young Jihadists meeting, or people who blindly vote for someone just because he promises "change"? Maybe if Obama gave specifics on what "change" means, I might have respect for him as someone who had principles, even if I disagreed with those principles.

Just remember that several decades ago, people shouted "Sieg heil!" at rallies and embraced someone who promised to restore strength and pride in the Vaterland. I'm not calling Obama a Hitler or implying he's a proto-dictator, but I'm merely comparing two different generations of two very different peoples who exhibit the natural human tendency to follow charisma without thinking.

A few more "macaca" moments for the nearly all-white G.O.P. could spell its doom. Recognizing the backlash that has followed the racially tinged smears leveled at Mr. Obama so far, Mr. McCain wasted no time in publicly scolding the right-wing radio talk-show host who railed against Barack Hussein Obama at one of his rallies last week. Or perhaps, as those of us who like Mr. McCain want to believe, he is simply a man of honor: he knows that history will judge him exactingly on how he runs against America's first black or female presidential nominee, win or lose.

Since even Rich acknowledges that McCain has repudiated race- and religion-based attacks on Obama, Rich's close is bordering on a non sequitur, which is appropriate because he closes his op-ed after exhausting every liberal trick of rhetoric.

Will the jihadists really leave you alone if you play isolationist?

There's no need for us to answer the question when the terrorists do it for us.

Al-Qaida Joins Algerians Against France

PARIS Sep 14, 2006 (AP)— Al-Qaida has for the first time announced a union with an Algerian insurgent group that has designated France as an enemy, saying they will act together against French and American interests.

Current and former French officials specializing in terrorism said Thursday that an al-Qaida alliance with the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, known by its French initials GSPC, was cause for concern.

"We take these threats very seriously," Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said, adding in an interview on France-2 television that the threat to France was "high" and "permanent," and that "absolute vigilance" was required.

Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, announced the "blessed union" in a video posted this week on the Internet to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

France's leader have repeatedly warned that the decision not to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq would not shield the country from Islamic terrorism. French participation in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon could give extremists another reason to strike.

After becoming the land of dhimmitude, via the great French pasttime se rendre, France is still a target for the terrorists. Who's really surprised? You don't win by capitulation, and the jihadists are an enemy who are only emboldened by increasing signs of weakness.

How about putting the story in another context?

Mexican Group Joins Japan Against U.S.

Washington, D.C. December 7, 1942 (AP)— For the first time, a group of Mexican border bandits has announced a union with Japan, saying they will act together against American interests.

Current and former Department of War officials specializing in terrorism said Thursday that Japan's alliance with the Sons of Pancho Villa, known by the Mexican government by its initials LHDPV, was cause for concern.

"We take these threats very seriously," Secretary of War Henry Stimson said, adding in a radio broadcast from the White House that the threat to Americans was "high" and "permanent," and that "absolute vigilance" was required.

LHDPV's number two, Eduardo Gonzalez, announced "this union blessed by Our Lady" in a letter sent to several major American newspapers on the first anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Several members of President Roosevelt's administration have repeatedly warned that with the country's focus on the Axis Powers, it has ignored the threat from Mexican guerrillas. These groups have previously raided border towns only to finance their fighting against the Mexican government, but they apparently have gained courage by the U.S. war effort going badly.

Islamofascists and their apologists

Charles Evans asks "Who is the Fascist Here?" but is unqualified to answer his own question, as we'll see. Like most political science professors I've talked to or whose writings I've read, he either doesn't know what real fascism is or redefines it to suit his purpose. Let there be no mistake: his agenda as an apologist for "radical Islam" ("only" 10% of a billion-plus people who want to see the West go down in literal flames) is to paint George W. Bush as a fascist while whitewashing the religious tyranny of a major religion's "fringe element."

I'm far from a GWB apologist, but this retired professor just doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's take his claims one by one.

First, it is untrue that "Calling one's opponents unpleasant names is known in philosophy as an ad hominem argument, and it is recognized as a logical fallacy." Evans should know better, if he really is so acquainted with logical fallacies. He's making one himself, asserting a ludicrous absolute that because ad hominem arguments involve "unpleasant names," therefore all usage of "unpleasant names" are ad hominem. It would have been proper for him to say, "An ad hominem argument in philosophy includes calling one's opponents unpleasant names." By reversing the statement, Evans immediately discounts the possibility that an "unpleasant name" could be very true and appropriate. Is it ad hominem to call Hitler and Mussolini "fascists" despite the universal opinion that they were?

In fact, an ad hominem (literally "to the man" in Latin) argument is to refute someone's statement by personally attacking him and declaring that his statement therefore cannot be true. It is not necessarily ad hominem just because you happen to define someone with a term that happens to offend him. A perfect example is from a little while ago, when our friend Keith Burgess-Jackson called Brian Leiter's anonymous lackey a "jock-sniffer." While derisive, the term aptly described Leiter's sycophant, and moreover, KBJ did far more than attack the "jock-sniffer" personally. Similarly, if certain Muslims are indeed fascist in their beliefs and actions, then Bush, I and many others are perfectly proper to call them the "Islamofascist" neologism.

Of course, I'm calling Evans an "Islamofascism apologist," which I'm certain he'd find "unpleasant," and no doubt he and his supporters would accuse me of hypocrisy by making my own ad hominem attack. However, the difference is that calling him an "unpleasant name" is hardly the crux of my argument.

"Sound logic requires us to understand that bad people and bad ideas are not synonymous, and in the same way, good people do not always have sound ideas. But, bad logic often makes for good propaganda." A student of logic will see another fallacy here: an obviously true, extremely general statement near the end is insufficient to validate the preceding arguments. After all, to disagree with those two sentences is on par with opposing motherhood and favoring sin.

Evans' is already up to his third logical fallacy in the second paragraph. He makes an "appeal to authority" by referencing Georgie Ann Geyer, a noted liberal op-ed writer who has a anti-Republican (not necessarily anti-conservative) axe to grind. But how much can we regard Geyer's cited op-ed, when she waves off George W. Bush's use of "Islamic fascist" as merely "his way of signaling that any young Muslim who doesn't like him (or freedom, for goodness's sake) is almost certainly a fascist"? Geyer is making her own logical fallacy, a straw man argument, by distorting who Bush is calling an "Islamic fascist."

After rambling on about the "imprecise" definitions of fascism, Evans presents his own 14-point amalgam of two others' 14-point definitions of fascism. And who is to say that any of those three are correct? If anything, Old American Century's attempt to "prove" GWB is a fascist falls more than flat, and not just because it distorts news headlines and presents them out of context:

1. Nationalism is hardly a unique trait of fascism. "Mother Russia," anyone? And what is so wrong with having pride in your country, particularly this one with its traditions of freedom and self-determination?

2. "Disregard for human rights" is likewise not confined to fascism, as Lenin and his successors proved. Also, how is it violating anyone's "human rights" for the U.S. to oppose the International Criminal Court, which is deliberately anti-American and whose claimed authority violates our U.S. Constitution?

3. "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause" is a logical fallacy. "Identification of Scapegoats" would have been correct about tyrants in general, but Britt refused to admit that an enemy can be very real. September 11, 2001, proved that we are fighting a very, very real enemy.

4. "Supremacy of the military." Military spending in the United States, as a percentage of GDP, is far less than historical fascist regimes. The characteristic of the federal government, as it has been for the last seven decades, is the supremacy of the welfare state. The forced redistribution of wealth at the hands of government is socialism, not fascism.

5. "Rampant sexism." Is sexism why GWB chose Condoleeza Rice for National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State? Is sexism the reason Cynthia McKinney was all but given a free pass by mainstream media when she shouted "Do you know who I am?" and struck a Capitol Hill police officer?

However, sexism has never been a historical characteristic of fascist regimes because it never really mattered. Women could be just as important to the state.

6. "Controlled mass media" is the stupidest claim of all these. Is GWB so in control of all mass media outlets that he allows them to spend most of their time attacking his administration, either directly (e.g. RatherGate) or by giving time to his opponents? There are a few links to allegations, but let's "get real" here: I'm not excusing any criminal wrongdoing now, but "dirty tricks" have been happening for decades under both Republicans and Democrats. If you're going to point the finger at Bush, let's also talk about how Clinton sicced the IRS on his enemies.

7. "Obsession with national security." So what about every Democratic candidate accusing Bush of not doing enough, or doing the wrong things, for "national security"? When the White House (not really Bush himself) approved the handover of six U.S. ports' administration to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, Democrats were the first to accuse him of ignoring the potential threat to "national security." So just who is obsessed?

8. "Religion and government are intertwined." When Barack Obama made very pro-religion statements, did those make him a fascist? It's not ok for Republicans to appeal to a majority of their base, and it's not ok for a North Carolina lawmaker to propose allowing a preacher to talk about politics, but it's ok for Hillary to attend a black church and accuse Bush of running the White House "like a plantation"?

I'm a fundamentalist Christian, but I still have a problem with religious conservatives who use the force of government to impose their values on others. However, there are so many activist courts that nullify conservatives' endeavors, and in fact, the courts often tip things toward liberals.

9. "Corporate Power is Protected." This is wholly incorrect, because fascism seeks to exert its power through controlling business, while preventing business from wielding its own influence. I wrote "influence" because even the largest corporation has no inherent "power." Its only "power" is what customers give it through their patronage, and/or what government gives it via charters/monopolies and other preferential treatment.

10. Fascism suppresses labor no more than socialism and communism: whether a tyrant is fascist or socialist, he will try to destroy any form of organized resistance. What was Lech Wałęsa doing in Poland but organizing a trade union not permitted by the government?

And by the way, how is it bad that GWB "suppressed labor power" by removing their government-protected abilities to coerce campaign money from others? It's not just union members who disagree with their leadership, but the taxpayers who must indirectly hire union workers. If labor unions lose power because they cannot use government to coerce money from me, then that's too bad for them.

11. How is it "disdain for intellectuals and the arts" when government stops taking money from people to give to others? I think science and art are great, but I think it's immoral that money is taken from me to pay for others' enjoyment.

One of the links alleges conservatives' suppression of freedom of speech, but if you check the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, you'll see that the real threat is from the liberal PC crowd.

12. "Obsession with crime and punishment" is in what way restricted to fascism? Wasn't the USSR even more obsessed with definining as many crimes as possible so it could punish/banish dissidents to Siberia? Isn't the "People's Republic of China" still doing the same? Are they fascist?

13. Likewise, "cronyism and corruption" are not only a trademark of fascism, but any other regime based on absolutism. Ferdinand Marcos was not really a fascist, but his dictatorship in the Philippines was marked by "cronyism and corruption" -- then again, it wasn't to any further degree than the rest of Philippine politics.

14. Here we go again with the "fraudulent elections" schtick, which liberals haven't been able to shake since the 2000 presidential election. As usual, there are a lot of links to sites and people with only allegations, but nothing concrete. And there's no mention of Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, which reportedly received more ballots on Election Day 2004 than were registered voters.

Now let's play Evans' own game and go through his points.

1. "Tradition" is a hallmark of conservatism, which is often confused with fascism. But if you want to talk about a true "cult of tradition," most Muslim nations are far more steeped in their homogenous traditions (often at the point of a gun scimitar) than the extraordinarily heterogenous United States.

And if we're wrong to believe the U.S. is a great nation, the first to be founded directly on the principle of liberty, and that it deserves a special place in history, then who is right? Should we go the Noam Chomsky route and beat ourselves over the head, because we're so evil to be proud of the ideals and innovations we've brought to the rest of the world?

Score: Islamofascists 1, Bush 0.

2. "Fascist governments reject modernism and rationality, although they embrace the instrumentality of technology. Fascist regimes are marked by irrationality, anti-intellectualism, and emotion." How is George W. Bush "reject[ing] modernism and rationality," and is he "anti-intellectual" just because he disagrees with liberal intellectuals? I disagree with them too, so does that make me a fascist?

As a perfect example of how Islam has embraced intellectuals, look at what Muslim rulers did to suppress the great Muslim scholars and authors. While Europe languished in the Dark Ages, Muslim intellectuals advanced human knowledge of mathematics and science (especially algebra and astronomy) and produced wondrous literature. That reversed itself by the Renaissance.

Score: Islamofascists 2, Bush 0.

3. Here Evans is doing nothing more than redefining fascism to suit his own agenda. Fascist leaders have generally favored military conflict because they don't want peaceful solutions, but so have tyrants of all political persuasions. That is simply the nature of absolute rule.

Score: Islamofascists 2, Bush 0.

4. It's nothing new that Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of treason (with libertarians like me accusing both of them), but it's nothing new: the Federalists and Democrat-Republicans did the same to each other in the late 1700s. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers had the foresight to include a very narrow definition of "treason" in the Constitution. And unlike what occurs regularly in a true fascist regime, no one in the United States has yet to be convicted of treason during GWB's presidency. John Walker Lindh could easily have (and should have IMO) but wasn't.

Was George III a fascist? No, he was an absolute ruler but not a fascist, although it was certainly "treason" (and often punishable by death) to oppose him. So Evans is employing a logical fallacy again: fascists consider it "treason" to dissent, but a government that quashes dissent and considers it "treason" is not necessarily fascist.

On the other hand, try dissenting in "secular" Egypt or "moderate" Saudi Arabia, let alone Iran or Syria, and see where that gets you.

Score: Islamofascists 3, Bush 0.

5. GWB must have a strange brand of "fear of diversity or difference" that prompted him to appoint more minorities to prominent positions, and support a guest worker program. On the other hand, how well do Christians fare in "moderate" Saudi Arabia? How respected are their "differences"?

Score: Islamofascists 4, Bush 0.

6. Evans should have stopped at "social frustration of groups or classes of citizens." The rest could have been eliminated entirely, because it refers to everyone: internal, external, above or below. It's akin to saying, "The answer could be a positive number, a negative number, zero, or imaginary."

That said, Bush has no more drawn on voters' emotions than anyone else, whether American politicians or Muslim rulers. Are any particularly bad, though? Though GWB has led the United States into a war, I have yet to hear him call for wiping any nation off the map, unlike certain Muslim leaders. Now that is preying on a people's "social frustration" of others.

Score: Islamofascists 5, Bush 0.

7. Ah yes, there's such hyper-nationalism in the United States that Noam Chomsky was sent off to a concentration camp long ago, right? And Madman Mahmoud is rallying his entire nation against Israel for humanitarian purposes?

Score: Islamofascists 6, Bush 0.

8. This is nothing unique to fascist regimes. Look at Cuba or any other Third World nation that tried socialism. Look at the Muslim nations who attacked Israel three times, and each time got their asses kicked harder than the previous conflict.

Score: Islamofascists 7, Bush 0.

9. Finally Evans stated a somewhat true characteristic of fascism. Fascism views history as purely a struggle of the state, with the individual seen as but a small component. Also, war is not essential, but justified if necessary to preserve the state. Unfortunately for Evans, there just isn't anything in GWB's presidency to prove that he believes this, but the Islamofascists are all about jihad -- literally "struggle" -- to effect Muslim domination across the world.

Score: Islamofascists 8, Bush 0.

10. Politican "elitism" in the United States is not unique to GWB; it's the nature of American politics. However, cultural elitism is a major part of Islamofascism (see #9), and Arabs are well-known for disdain of anyone they perceive as "weak."

Score: Islamofascists 9, Bush 0.

11. Evans is really stretching it here. According to him, the Greeks were fascists? After all, they venerated their heroes and promoted the ideal. Are the people of New York fascist to mourn the loss of firefighters, recently as well as on 9/11, as "the passing of heroes"?

On the other hand, which culture promotes the glorious, heroic martyrdom of young men blowing themselves up to kill the infidels, with the promise of 72 virgins in paradise?

Score: Islamofascists 10, Bush 0.

12. Stretching it again, Evans ascribes qualities to fascism that aren't necessarily so. Nazi Germany was in fact noted for sexual depravities of its own, not counting the "experiments" that its doctors performed on women in concentration camps. Also, if fascism is so "conservative" in its sexual convictions, then why have so many fascist leaders had mistresses? Hint: Hitler didn't die with his wife.

Evans can't even get his list straight, throwing "chastity" in with homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity, and extramarital sex. He was probably rushing too much in making his stuff up.

As far as I'm aware, the United States doesn't execute people for these crimes. On the other hand, Allah help you if you're convicted of homosexuality in Saudi Arabia or Iran...

Score: Islamofascists 11, Bush 0.

13. So modern-day Germany is still fascist, because the children of foreigners born in Germany are themselves considered foreigners? On the other hand, the United States under any administration is very welcoming of virtually all peoples and cultures, regardless of who the President and Congress are. As stated before, Bush is the one pushing for a guest worker program (bucking his own party). Also, he's the one who has defended Islam as "a peaceful religion." When has Madman Mahmoud defended Judaism and Christianity as peaceful religions? And when are the people of these hardline Muslim countries ever permitted to live according to their own consciences?

Score: Islamofascists 12, Bush 0.

14. It would be nice if Evans gave specifics here, instead of making a blanket accusation. But if you want to talk about Newspeak, how about Madman Mahmoud claiming that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes? There are some terms that just don't belong together, especially "Muslim nation" and "nuclear capability."

Score: Islamofascists 13, Bush 0.

So in the end, by Evans' own standards, "Islamofascist" is a very appropriate term for these nations and their leaders, but Bush really isn't a fascist. Nonetheless, I have very serious problems with him and his administration, not the least of which is the unconstitutional, sans-warrant spying on American citizens. I personally am forgiving about Iraq, because war is unpredictable, and I think most Americans are too optimistic about how effective we -- even we -- can be in combat. Perhaps my biggest problem with GWB is his rubber-stamp on the biggest growth of government spending since LBJ, based on his modern liberal belief (uttered post-Katrina) that "When someone is hurting, government must move." That's the redistribution of wealth, i.e. socialism, and it can't be balanced out by any quantity of tax cuts.

Bush isn't (yet?) really authoritarian, despite his centralization and expansion of government police powers, and despite his trampling of individual rights for the sake of effecting greater "national security." (On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani and Rick Santorum are authoritarians.) Most fundamentally, Bush is a party man: he'll do whatever it takes to keep his party in power. I don't think he's inherently a fan of big government, but he'll (ab)use it if it will advance fellow Republicans. Either way, he's definitely not a "true" conservative, but most Republicans aren't either. The party began with big government traditions, so it's not a post-1994 phenomenon that they turned out to be "big-government conservatives." They adhere to some conservative values, but not to the core value of limited government. Just like the scripture says, "Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof."

French combat strategy

The first French "peacekeeping" troops to arrive in Lebanon were a vanguard of...49...who arrived in...inflatable dinghies. At least they sailed for Lebanon via a warship, but then again, under their navy specifications that probably means anything over 20 feet. Well, maybe they plan to make Hezbollah laugh themselves to death.



Only the French could arrive with "We'll surrender!" all over their foreheads. Never mind the jokes about the Canadian navy -- nothing could have bolstered Hezbollah's confidence more than the sight of those frogs. How do you say, "More pathetic than 1940 and 1870 combined" in Arabic? Perhaps dinghies were all that the mighty French needed for transporting themselves and their smelly cheese equipment, but let's remember a particular characteristic about this enemy we're fighting. While Arabs respect strength, as do most cultures, they particularly despise weakness (like when Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip, and its capitulation in 1993 with the Oslo Accords). Similarly, in "Braveheart" when Edward Longshanks decided to send a negotiator to meet with Wallace, he mused that the appearance of his "gentle son" would only embolden the Scots.

There's probably an Arabic saying equivalent to "bringing a knife to a gunfight" (dagger against a scimitar?), and that's exactly what the French did. Ah well, it's not as if the UN "peacekeeping" force would ever be of any worth, anyway. The jihadists already knew that. They also know that if they can make we Westerners fight by "rules" while they do whatever it takes for them to win, they'll win. The UN "peacekeepers" will do no more than sit around pointing fingers at Israel, following Kofi's example, when in fact Israel is doing nothing more than cutting off the jihadists' supply lines. The jihadists meanwhile will continue fighting to achieve peace by winning, not by agreement.

Yahoo's news stories are especially prone to updates without notice. When I read the story on Saturday morning, it was the mention of "inflatable dinghies" that caught my eye. However, that AP story, on Yahoo and many other sites, no longer mentions the mode of transportation. For example, searching Google News yields many CBS News sites, with search results snippets still mentioning the dinghies, but the articles have been "updated" and no longer do. Maybe the AP editors realized it was too embarrassing for even the French? Forbes and the Guardian still mention it.

A Zionist war on Islam?

Bin Laden Accuses U.S. of 'War on Islam'

CAIRO, Egypt Apr 23, 2006 (AP)— Osama bin Laden issued new threats in an audiotape broadcast on Arab television Sunday and accused the United States and Europe of supporting a "Zionist" war on Islam by cutting off funds to the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

He also urged followers to go to Sudan, his former base, to fight a proposed U.N. peacekeeping force.

His words, the first new message by the al-Qaida leader in three months, seemed designed to justify potential attacks on civilians something al-Qaida has been criticized for even by its Arab supporters.

He also appeared to be trying to drum up support among Arabs by accusing the West of targeting Hamas, a militant group that fights against Israel and now heads the Palestinian government.

Citing the West's decision to cut off aid to the Hamas-led government because it refuses to renounce violence or recognize Israel, bin Laden said Washington and Europe were waging war on Islam.

"The blockade which the West is imposing on the government of Hamas proves that there is a Zionist, crusaders' war on Islam," bin Laden said....

Israeli government spokesman Raanan Gissin said it appeared bin Laden decided to issue the verbal assault to deflect growing Arab animosity toward al-Qaida....

Bob Ayers, a security expert with the Chatham House think tank in London, said the tape may be bin Laden's way of playing cat-and-mouse with those hunting him.

"It's when people have kind of forgotten about him, when he's not been on the news, that the tapes emerge," Ayers said. "It's kind of his way of thumbing his nose at the U.S. and saying, 'Hey, I'm still out here, and you haven't caught me and you can't.' That's what he's saying."

Osama's latest message is like a criminal blaming policemen for being in prison; apparently it didn't matter that the criminal is incarcerated because he committed a crime, not merely because law enforcement caught him. Osama's excuse is like when Japan accused the U.S. of provocation when, in fact, the U.S. oil embargo was a response to purely unprovoked Japanese aggression in Asia. Forgive me for appealing to a little logic here, but is there the tiniest possibility that Israel cut off funds to the Palestinian government because the latter happens to be comprised of thugs? And as I pointed out at the end of my satire, there's no difference between Fatah and Hamas, even after Arafat (may he be roasting in hell with Khomeini) died a pitifully easy death.

Now let's look at how Salah Nasrawi, the reporter, phrased something so curiously: "seemed designed to justify potential attacks on civilians..." I guess Nasrawi (whose name is as Arab as you can get) doesn't count the mass murder of 9/11 as "potential attacks on civilians." Perhaps "civilian" to him doesn't include non-Muslims? Besides, since when did Osama or his butchers ever care about who they killed? It's not even a matter of killing Christians and Jews: they will even murder fellow Muslims. These are the real cowards, no matter what Bill Maher likes to think.

Israel's government spokesman is likely correct. It's a classic ploy of tyrants, or wannabe tyrants, to distract the people by channelling their anger toward fictitious enemies. "We have always been at war with Eurasia." If Osama didn't energize so many Islamofascists into fighting the mythical monster of "the West," then enough reasonable people across the Middle East might wake up someday and realize the religious dictatorships that enslave them. Similarly, if Americans had any concept of the ticking time bomb of Social Security and Medicare, they'd be protesting in far greater numbers than those taking to the streets about illegal immigration. Illegal immigration, though, is almost a red herring in that politicians can seize on it, spend weeks in deadlock, and divert our attention from more important issues.

And Ayers is correct: Osama is old news, but his ego won't allow him to stay silent. What Ayers doesn't understand is that the U.S. doesn't care anymore about capturing Osama. The putz has long since been neutralized, running from cave to cave just like Saddam ran from house to house. As I wrote last month, the Democrats are fools to think we should send in so many men and so much equipment for just one man. We need only apply a little pressure to keep Osama checked, and right now it's not important to capture him. He's in no position to plan, command and coordinate, not like before he went on the run. It's the fact that he wields such little power now that, for the sake of his ego, he must release messages every so often in the hope that Western countries, and his own followers too, still consider him a threat.

When the War on Terror gets tough...Democrats still only talk tough

So now the Democrats "pledge" to "eliminate" Osama. What's next, they'll wave a magic wand and make things as good as God's kingdom on Earth?

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats behind this latest stunt have clearly never seen "The Great Escape" (perhaps the best war movie ever, even surpassing "The Dirty Dozen"). Maybe "The Mask of Zorro" is what they recently screened: "It's not just one man, damn it, it's Zorro!" Osama isn't Zorro, though, and he is just one man. It didn't matter that we didn't get him at Tora Bora, no matter how many times John Kerry protested during the debates. He's been neutralized since late 2001 ever since having to go into hiding, evidenced by his silence and Zarqawi and Zawahiri's increased prominence. So unless we want to waste manpower and time for pure revenge, let's not pay any heed to the Democrats' latest game of "pseudo-bravado for votes." I'm hardly a Republican (let alone a loyal one), but the Democrats really are the party of saying and doing anything.

If we did double our special forces and sent in more spies, all for just Osama, he'd laugh to cardiac failure at our stupidity. The whole purpose of "The Great Escape" was that, no matter whether Steve McQueen & Co. succeeded, they made the Nazis waste a lot of time and men looking for them -- resources that could have been used at the front. Increasing our presence will only detract from what is most critical, which, like it or not, is Iraq.

As Jon Henke pointed out a while back, "The Reality Based Community is promising faith-based foreign policy." It's a must-read every time we begin to think the Democrats might actually have a plan of substance. Howard Dean said:

First we will conclude the negotiations with the Chinese and the North Koreans to disarm North Korea. Secondly, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power. Three, we will kill or capture Osama bin Laden and four, the authority and the control of the ports of the United States must be retained by American companies.

Jon tore Dean's rubbish apart in detail, and I left a brief comment wondering about the magic wand the Democrats appear to have. It's like the young mouse's proposal to bell the cat, which everyone thought was a great idea...until the wise old mouse asked just how he proposed to do it. I guess like with the cat, dealing with North Korea, Iran and Osama will involve asking nicely. Have the Democrats really never advanced beyond Jimmy Carter's foreign policy?

U.S. to cede full administrative control of its southern border to Mexico

(Updated at 1:54 a.m.)

In the news:

At a press conference Sunday afternoon, President Bush announced that he and Mexican President Vicente Fox have reached an agreement that will completely cede administrative control of the southern U.S. border to Mexican authorities.

In a pre-emptive counter to Democrats' expected criticism, Bush made specific assurances that the deal would save the U.S. money while having no detrimental effect on border security. "This is win-win for both the United States and Mexico. The same American border agents will continue to report to work every day. Only administrative functions will be taken over by Mexican citizens, and they'll be subject to the same scrutiny by the Department of Homeland Security."

Bush's former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, attended to cite the benefits of free trade. Mankiw was heavily criticized during the 2004 presidential election campaign for defending the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign nations as beneficial. Mankiw explained today, "Mexican officials on our side will be paid the same as their counterparts on the other side. Those will be new and well-paying jobs for the Mexicans, and that's actually good for us. NAFTA and other Free Trade Agreements have empirically demonstrated that we lose some jobs at first, but because our trading partners suddenly have higher incomes, they can buy more goods and services from us. Overall, we actually get more jobs that pay even more."

As expected, Democrats launched an all-out attack on what Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, claimed "is a self-created danger to U.S. national security." After the introduction to his regular Sunday press conference, he yielded to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to make the main criticism for the Democratic Party. She accused President Bush of forging a deal that, if anything, would open up the border to increased illegal immigration. Via video teleconferencing, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson appeared angry, shaking his fist as he blasted the agreement. "This will only encourage more drug trafficking across our southern border, and more Mexican gang violence against our border towns. And this President claims to stand for national security?"

No such press conferences took place, actually. This is only a satire I wrote tonight to illustrate a few points about the Bush Administration's deal to permit Dubai Ports World, a company directly owned by the United Arab Emirates, to assume administrative control over U.S. ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.

I first read about it on Michelle Malkin's blog on the 16th, when she referenced a New York Sun article. Mainstream media was quiet for the first days or two after the deal's approval. As Michelle noted, most news outlets were too busy talking about Dick Cheney's accidentally shooting his friend while hunting. Meanwhile, a very real threat to national security began brewing.

Maybe I'm still more conservative than I thought. Last June, because of socialists among conservative ranks, I stopped calling myself "a conservative with libertarian leanings" or "a libertarian conservative," and I began drifting toward actual libertarianism. Yet I still believe "national security" is a very real concept we must preserve. Borders matter, not because of trade, but because, to put it simply, there are a lot of bad guys out there who'd love nothing better than to sneak in and blow ourselves up.

We can accept that our lives are ultimately in God's hands. That still doesn't mean I won't lock my door at night, or take measures to protect myself from assailants. My faith is strong, but I'm not going to tempt God by asking for a legion of angels when I ought to be able to care for myself. I find it a very bad, very frightening idea to let Dubai Ports World possess any responsibilities for our ports, even if "only" in an administrative capacity. So I differ from the libertarians with whom I otherwise side much of the time, and some conservatives too. Real conservatives, I should say, not the prevalent conservatives who believe in a combination of Big Government and Big Brother Government.

Our friend Josh Hendrickson supports the deal. I greatly respect Josh and his opinion but must disagree with his "reasons not to worry." I do agree completely with the Wall Street Journal op-ed that Josh linked to, which accuses Democrats of opposing the port deal for political reasons, not because they actually care about national security. Too true. For the same reason, Hillary now acts like a conservative when it comes to illegal immigration, and Democrats have been trying to reinvent themselves as "fiscally responsible" while saying we must wean ourselves from foreign oil. I can't find it offhand, but I think it was Power Line who recently pointed out that Democrats have opposed any sort of racial profiling -- until now. It's nothing but their typical hypocrisy, in other words, that they're suddenly worrying about an Arab country gaining some control over our ports, when since 9/11 they've been the main opponents of closer screening of Arabs and Muslims.

Also via Josh, I read this New York Times article that points out, "The gaping holes in security at American ports have little to do with the nationality of who is running them." That may be so, but if the ports are under American citizens' control, the authorities responsible have an automatically greater incentive to correct those inadequate security measures, and to scrutinize personnel more closely. Why? Because the spirit of nationalism recognizes that American citizens' safety is a very real, albeit non-monetary benefit. Nationalism may have negative connotations today, but it shouldn't be: there's nothing wrong with loyalty to one's country. And if American citizens make a mistake, very well, we made a mistake. At least we'll know who did it, and we can take responsibility for it ourselves. It's better to kick ourselves in the behind because we screwed up directly, not because we entrusted the wrong people.

Now, regarding the free trade aspect. I'm a major opponent of protectionist economics, not just a Bush-type "free-trader" who demands "fair trade," which is not real free trade. "Free Trade Agreements" are freer trade, i.e. more liberalized trade, but the very existence of any regulations means that the trade isn't truly "free." I'm a Walter Williams-type free-trader who agrees that we shouldn't engage in protectionism even in retaliation for other nations' trade practices. The very thing that encourages trade is that one side has a comparative advantage over the other, allowing it to provide certain goods and services more efficiently.

Whether it's between countries or individuals, we trade because not doing things ourselves, not having control over the production and resulting supply, is worth the money saved. However, we must not consider trade strictly in terms of money. In my undergraduate study of economics, I was most influenced by Dr. Sanford Ikeda. As I've said before, he's an Austrian economist's Austrian economist. I do not see my Austrian training as contradictory with my "nationalist" desire for security at American ports that is overseen strictly by Americans, because it is first and foremost for the safety of Americans. Austrian economics is a major proponent of the idea that benefits and costs are not always monetary, is it not? Well, money is the only issue, not just the main one, if the ports are run purely as a business, particularly by foreigners who may not fundamentally give a damn about American citizens' well-being.

If we do not consider potential costs of who is supplying a particular good or service, we might as well outsource our military to India. Certainly we can hire a few million Indians who are intelligent and physically fit, who will serve in our armed forces for a fraction of what Americans presently earn...right? Why don't we just hire 500,000 Indians to fight for us in Iraq? Could it be because, considering full costs and benefits, beyond just money, our own people are better? Conversely, I was telling a friend the other day that admittedly we trade with China knowing that part of the money goes to expanding its military, but at present the benefit to the U.S. is worth the small potential of actual war. I think China doesn't want actual war with the U.S., only a stalemate like the USSR achieved for a while. Let's also not forget that China needs Sino-U.S. trade just as much, perhaps more, because it needs U.S. Treasury bonds as collateral for its insolvent banking system.

Returning to Dubai World Ports and our ports' security, I say that the potential detriment of a single terrorist slipping through a tiny crack, no matter how remote the possibility, far outweighs any monetary savings. Are the operations efficient for us, or for terrorists who might gain an opportunity somewhere? All it might take is one Human Resources "error," purposeful or otherwise, in hiring one person who can commit severe sabotage, let alone sneak in a so-called "dirty bomb." The same people may still be showing up to work, at least for now. Can we guarantee they'll never be replaced by terrorists? Can U.S. Customs and the Coast Guard guarantee that a DPW executive might not pull strings, all the while pretending he's our friend? It's been said before, and very well, that terrorists need only be successful once out of many times. We, though, cannot afford to miss.

That the Department of Homeland Security will still retain ultimate oversight does not comfort me. DHS is fundamentally a joke, to put it bluntly. This is the same Department whose mandated random screening that frisks elderly grandmothers at airports, whose airport screeners are caught every so often stealing from passengers' luggage, whose agents crack down on the wrong immigrants (the peaceful ones who only want to come here to work versus the welfare state moochers, not to mention the drug dealers who are sent to revolving-door prisons).

James Glassman brushed off the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, citing Richard Reid, Jose Padilla and Timothy McVeigh. That's fine, but the probability of a potential terrorist/saboteur getting into U.S. port operations he shouldn't be in becomes greater when a Muslim nation-owned company is in control, even if just administratively or in ownership. Haven't we learned over the last three decades that Muslim terrorists tend to lie very low until they strike, or worse, talk nicely while they work against us? When will we learn that, statistically speaking, terrorists are more likely to come from certain countries than others?

When someone can demonstrate that just one Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu or other non-Muslim was involved in the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes, the 1983 attack on U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1985 hijacking of Achille Lauro (and murder of Leon Klinghoffer), the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the 2001 terrorist attacks, I'll reconsider my stance on the deal. Yes, I'm aware of several decades of Catholic-Protestant violence in Ireland, and what Timothy McVeigh did, but Islamic terrorism is far more prevalent. Statistically speaking, a terrorist incident is far more likely to be perpetrated by a Muslim, so it's sensible when a fundamentally Muslim-owned company suddenly acquires administrative control of our ports. It's only prudent when we've been attacked repeatedly by Muslim terrorists, and when they've promised further attacks.

But my objection isn't even a matter of what some call "anti-Muslism sentiment" or even "racism." I had no idea that the "Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co." (which is being bought out by Dubai Ports World) that currently oversees the administration of those U.S. ports is Brit-owned. That shouldn't be permitted either. There's a reason we require U.S. citizenship to hold federal office, and natural-born U.S. citizenship as a very specific, Constitutionally mandated requirement for the presidency: loyalty is a very desirable quality.

We might lose out by not having the very best minds as representatives in our various levels of government, and merely for the fact that they're foreigners, but that detriment is better than even the slightest risk of someone whose loyalty may not be 100% to the United States and its Constitution. Granted, we have a lot of candidates who do not respect nor follow the Constitution, but if these supposedly intelligent and well-meaning American citizens do not, how much worse could non-Americans be? They have no incentive.

Call me xenophobic, but I'll say bluntly that only an American-owned company, and one put through only the highest scrutiny, should be allowed any degree of authority over our ports. While that cannot guarantee a love for this country, statistically it has a far greater probability with American-controlled operations.

One thing I read in the news but haven't seen other bloggers pick up on. My apologies if anyone has. The United Arab Emirates donated $100 million to Katrina relief efforts, four times as much as everyone else combined, yet the Bush Administration denies that had anything to do with securing the ports deal. As Captain Kirk said ever so dryly in Star Trek VI: "Right." The more I read about the background of this deal, the more I see the dealings as just dirty.

Caught between Scylla and Charybdis

(Oops! I changed the time but forgot to change it to PM, and I didn't change the date either. Writing about the SOTU at 2 p.m. on Tuesday? Call me psychic.)

Transcript: President Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address

Transcript: Gov. Tom Kaine delivering the Democratic response

President Bush said some good things tonight in his State of the Union speech, but some bad things too. And as I fully expected, the Democratic response, instead of challenging President Bush on the actual Constitutional limits on the federal government, relied on partisan politics and new myths like "energy independence" and that the federal government should "serve us."

As I'm writing this up from my quickly typed notes, Fox News showed a clip that I didn't notice before. John Kerry turned to his left and said something to Dianne Feinstein. The side of his face was toward the camera, but Feinstein was facing it, and it wasn't hard to read her lips. She replied, "I know." Maybe he said something like, "That should be I up there!"

The President began well with a good indirect jab at the Democrats, criticizing the partisanship in Washington. The Democrats' behavior throughout Justice Alito's confirmation hearings was so disgusting that even Robert Byrd said, "The people of West Viriginia in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings." Byrd could have been stronger and said he was pointing fingers at unnamed members, but what would you expect from a partisan Democrat? Byrd could have a very tough campaign this time, so he needs to sound less extreme and more centrist. He's probably taking lessons from Hillary.

"We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline." Take that, John Kerry. Wide and straight is the road of protectionist economics, and it leads only to impoverished economies.

"There is no peace in retreat, and there is no honor in retreat.... But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil." As one who supported invading Iraq to topple Saddam and turn the most willing Iraqi people into friends, I'm naturally biased, but I rather liked that. Contrast Bush's refusal to surrender with the anti-war left who want to cut and run, come what may to Iraqis, and not because they have a sincere desire, but because it's to take the opposite position.

I was watching the speech on Fox News, which then cut to Charlie Rangel. He looked like he didn't particularly give a damn. Cut to John Kerry, whose countenance screamed, "Damn it, I should have been giving the speech tonight!"

"In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship, to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections." As I wrote last March, even the United States, after declaring independence in 1776 and formally gaining it in 1783, had much civil unrest (to the extent that George Washington thought a civil war was imminent) and an ineffective federal government until 1788. With our help, Iraqis have accomplished so much and so fast that it borders on miraculous.

"Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning. The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels. But those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C." Very good: peace through victory.

"...there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy." Another good jab at the anti-war Democrats. God knows we've made tactical errors in Iraq, but that is the nature of war. My father reminded me more than once how we bombed our own troops in Italy during World War II. It's one thing to examine mistakes and try to improve our military -- it's another to say that because we made mistakes and will inevitably make mistakes, we should never go to war and simply surrender.

"...the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism and work for lasting peace." I fear that's just a pipe dream. Hamas is all about working toward the destruction of Israel, using terrorism against innocent civilians.

"Liberty is the right and hope of all humanity." A bit of a platitude, but good to inject.

"...Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, and that must come to an end." With all the focus on Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons, I'm glad Bush reminded us that Iran's very government has long since been a major sponsor of global terrorism.

"I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America." I sighed here, because this compassion is the false notion of government charity, which of course is paid for by other people.

"So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected Al Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America." I more than sighed here, because not only does the Constitution of the United States not give such powers to the executive branch, the Fourth Amendment requires warrants. In these days of instant digital communications, obtaining a warrant within minutes should not be difficult.

Gathering intelligence on terrorists is certainly essential. I and other libertarians (currently derided by many conservatives as "civil liberties Chicken Littles") do not oppose the intelligence gathering, but the methods. As someone recently asked me rhetorically, why won't the administration submit requests to FISA? Are there so many terrorist-connected calls coming out of America that it would overwhelm the system? Is the administration is trying to save taxpayer dollars by cutting down on paper usage? Or are they not wiretapping who they say they are, so no court (even FISA) would actually grant such warrants? I'll also add, in all fairness, the possibility of an overzealous and misguided attempt to protect Americans.

The camera cut to Hillary Clinton, the queen of state-worshippers, who was smiling insincerely and slightly shaking her head.

"Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy, a war that will be fought by presidents of both parties who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom." The camera cut to Hillary again, who was no longer smiling and clapping just halfheartedly.

"In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs -- more than Japan and the European Union combined." That was a sobering statistic illustrating Japan's travails (and not from a lack of effort) and the EU's stagnation (which is from a lack of real effort in reforming their tax policies and welfare states).

"In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India. And this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy." I very much liked this. Bush can talk like a real free-trader when he wants, but he's disappointed me a few times with things like steel tariffs.

"We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy, even though this economy could not function without them." Though our welfare state attracts many immigrants who want a free ride, that is all too true. Many illegal immigrants really do do the jobs that Americans won't, and they're people who simply want to come to this country peacefully and work hard.

"All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction: toward a stagnant and second-rate economy." The road goes in only two directions, and the other way is toward prosperity.

Bush touted his tax cuts, as he should have. "In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses and families. And they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth." That's $880 billion spent by people on what they judged was necessary and efficient, not politicians' latest projects.

I still maintain that the timing of Bush's tax cuts was a stroke of luck, otherwise our very mild recession (unemployment not even at 7%, when "normal" unemployment in a stagnant but "happy" economy like France's is 10%!) would have been much worse. Bush added, "I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent."

I would like to add that I urge Congress and the President "to act responsibly" and cut federal spending -- by a lot. When Bush spoke of "another $14 billion next year," I could only laugh bitterly and say, "Big deal!" That drop in the bucket will make no difference in the deficit, let alone halving it by 2009.

Once Bush mentioned the word "earmarks," McCain vigorously applauded. Bush then called upon Congress to give him the line-item veto, which Clinton briefly had. I fear that, even with a Republican Congress, President Bush expressed the same hopeless desire that his father did.

Bush then turned to massive growth in "entitlements" (how I hate that term, because it implies obligation on government's part). By 2030, nearly 60% of the federal budget will be on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. To put it in perspective, our current entitlement spending is about $1 trillion out of a $2.5 trillion federal budget, and at 60% it would be an even more staggering $1.5 trillion. If you follow that link, one error I'd like to note in the newspaper article is that the $2.2 trillion figure is budgeted federal spending, but actual federal spending in 2005 was $2.47 trillion.

"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security, yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And with every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse." Good, very good. Emphasize that the longer we delay, the more wealth we lose and the more painful we make reform.

Then Bush said, "So tonight I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." Oh, for the love of heaven, we already know the full impact! Numerous thinktanks of all political persuasions have all done projections and arrived at more or less the same figures about how many elderly will be retiring and how many workers will be supporting them. Where they differ is how to deal with it.

"One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American." It's a good statistic to show the regular American how free trade may send some of our jobs overseas, but we create new jobs to make things for our new trading partners.

But it really scares me Bush talks about "a level playing field." Is that a sly reference to China's alleged currency manipulation, which GM and Ford have recently used as an excuse for their failures?

Bush then got to the meat of his "compassionate conservatism": "Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care," and "Government has the responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly." I again was reminded that he might sound Reagan-like in promoting tax cuts, but Bush is still a big government conservative.

"We will make wider use of health information technology to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors." If private companies could already use the technology to control costs, though, they already would have. Companies would jump at the chance because they could continue to charge the same prices, increasing their profits...at least until one company charged less to get more customers, and others followed suit.

He promoted "health savings accounts" as he did during the 2004 campaign, and that they should be "portable." But such accounts wouldn't be necessary if we didn't tax savings -- if we had a more sensible tax system that didn't discourage savings (which fuel investment), people could simply save that money without the need for more government regulations.

Medical liability reform is a must, but I have no confidence in this being passed anytime soon. It's been proposed for years, and nobody does anything significant.

What is significant is Bush's attempt to brag that, "Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources." In other words, we've spent $10 billion so that we can use more expensive forms of energy, like wind, solar and water. If these were more efficient and cheaper than fossil fuels, then we'd already have been using them. The President sadly does not understand this aspect of the free market, because he continued in proposing his "Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas."

How much more of our money can the federal government spend so that we can use more expensive, less efficient ethanol? How much must we spend so we can use hybrid, electic and hydrogen-fueled automobiles, which, as our friend TKC pointed out, don't really save money overall?

Federal subsidies for ethanol are something I've criticized several times. When President Bush proposed federal funding for "additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass," to "make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years," I wanted to tear my hair out.

What he said next sounds like a good idea, "to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025," but as I pointed out here, it's not a bad thing to import something for cheaper than you can make it yourself. We could ban all imports of Middle East oil, but at what price? "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." Again, at what price? When we've made oil so expensive with bad supply-limiting policies that we stifle our economy?

Next, the proposal of the "American Competitiveness Initiative," i.e. another big government program to skew the labor markets. "I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years." In other words, double the spending, but what exactly are the "most critical" programs? Who will determine them, business investors who carefully weigh what they're pouring their money into, or government bureaucrats who dole out other people's money while under the influence of industry lobbyists?

The "research and development tax credit" is a good start toward real tax reform, because it sounds general enough. Specific tax incentives are bad policy, simply because they skew markets by favoring one industry (or company) over another. What I want to see is a full repeal of all taxes on businesses, because they do not pay taxes. I explained toward the end of this entry that businesses merely pass taxes onto consumers, which requires overhead, so it's actually better to have individuals bear the full tax burden.

"We made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country." Even conservatives like Michelle Malkin are more than dismayed at the huge mess and boondoggle of NCLB. With all those billions wasted, and schools in fact rarely left better off, how can we trust the federal government, as Bush called for tonight, "to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs"? As I discussed here, schools cannot attract professionals who can make much more in the private sector, and many school districts are like NYC's, unable to pay those salaries because they're too busy paying so many bad teachers.

"I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act and provide new funding to states so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America." This is fundamentally redistribution of wealth, and it is self-defeating. Giving more money to states will encourage greater supply of the medicines, it is true, but it will divert pharmaceutical companies' efforts from other ventures that they'd have undertaken. They will make less medicine for influenza, less insulin, etc., so this is another example of government skewing the free market's determination of what is most important to people.

"Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility, and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss and never betray." Actually, I thought he and Congress made pledges "to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States."

And now for the Democratic response:

I was immediately suspicious when Tom Kaine began by mentioning his missionary experience. It's just like liberals to blur the important distinction between individual charity and government powers. Indeed, he wasted no time: "Our faith and values teach us that there's no higher calling than serving others. Our federal government should serve the American people."

Could there be any bigger poppycock in the world than liberals' belief in the nanny state?

"As Americans, we do great things when we work together." Perhaps he should ask, oh, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and most of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committe, who disgraced themselves at Justice Alito's confirmation hearings.

"When there is a natural disaster, you expect a well managed response." A nice generality, but the federal government has no Constitutional authority to do what it has for Louisiana and Missippippi in Katrina's aftermath.

"...you have a right to expect government to be fiscally responsible, pay the bills and live within its means. Tonight we heard the president again call to make his tax policies permanent, despite his administration's failure to manage our staggering national debt...huge surpluses to huge deficits..." Again I ask, where was the Democrats' "fiscal austerity" were in the 1980s when they were refusing to go along with Reagan and cut non-military spending, when Democrats controlled Congress and produced several budget deficits higher than today (as a percentage of the economy)? Moreover, not only were Clinton's two "surplus" years achieved in teamwork with a Republican Congress, the surpluses were not that large as a percentage of the budget or the economy.

In fact, federal debt has increased but is not as bad many think. Forget the absolute numbers and look at Steve Conover's January calculations. U.S. federal debt as a percentage of GDP is quite favorable compared to other nations, especially those in our range but whose economies are performing dismally. I'll post more on this another time, but federal debt is actually quite manageable right now. How many people do you know have a high debt ratio, but also get consistent pay raises of nearly 4% a year, pay between just 4% and 5% interest on their loans, and can borrow all the money they want because there are so many who are offering to lend money?

Kaine's nonsense about the United States' "credit rating" reflects either his ignorance or his partisanship: a country's credit rating is reflected in the interest rates it pays on its government bonds. The still-low interest rates on Treasury bonds are why paying interest on the national debt no longer consumes a quarter of the federal budget, unlike in the early 1990s. Foreigners have become so eager to save their money by buying our bonds, and they earned the dollars by selling goods and services to us.

"Congressional Democrats have a plan to educate 100,000 new engineers, scientists and mathematicians in the next four years." Ah, Bush proposed 30,000, so the Dems will more than triple that to prove that they're still the premier party of big government!

"The White House has made efforts to cut Medicaid funds for our most vulnerable citizens. Our seniors were promised that the new federal Medicare drug plan would make it easier and cheaper to obtain their medication." The Medicare prescription drug plan was bad, but Democrats don't see why it really is. To them, it's bad because they were beaten to it by a Republican President and Republican-controlled Congress. In reality, it's bad because the drug plan, and in fact Medicare/Medicaid, are not part of the federal government's constitutional powers.

"In Virginia, we've worked to provide health insurance coverage for nearly 140,000 children who weren't covered four years ago." But the age-old question: at what cost? Who's paying for it, and what are the taxed people not buying (meaning jobs are destroyed all over, little by little) because they are paying for others' health care?

"...Republicans and Democrats alike have come together to fight the administration's efforts to slash Medicaid and push more costs onto the states." And that is why both parties can be so wrong. The federal government under the real U.S. Constitution, not Robert Byrd's revised edition that allows spending on whatever they damn well please, is one of specific, limited powers. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that everything else is reserved to the states or to the people.

Kaine drudged up the old "inaccurate information" accusation, a nicer way than some Democrats' claim that the President deliberately misled the American people, when Democrats (among whom were Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy) since the late 1990s warned that Saddam was still pursuing WMD programs and couldn't be trusted. I look at the War on Terror this way: the Taliban are gone, a regime that harbored al Qaeda. Saddam has been toppled, a dictator who permitted al Qaeda and other terrorists to operate training camps in Iraq. Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal and gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers' families. Instead of two countries whose governments call for our destruction, Afghanistan and Iraq's governments are now friendly to the U.S., with about 50 million people now able to determine their own destiny. That sounds like pretty good success to me within four years.

What will be curious in the next while is the verifying of an Iraqi general's claims that Saddam sent chemical weapons to Syria on stripped-down civilian planes.

"Working together, we have to give our troops the tools they need to win the war on terror." Is that why John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it?

"Last summer, I joined Democrats in Washington and in other states and called on oil companies to share in our sacrifice and return some of their record-breaking excess profits." The Democrats ignore the fact that if oil prices hadn't gone so high, oil companies and oil-producing nations wouldn't be working so furiously to develop new oil fields so that we don't run out of oil. For more on the Democrats' myth of energy independence, click here. For the reason that Hillary and other Dems' desire to tax oil companies to hell will backfire by causing even higher prices for consumers, click here.

Beware: the Democrats' plan for energy independence will only make everything more expensive for us all by reducing our access to less expensive fossil fuels, by increasing our use of expensive alternative fuels.

"But at the same time, we have to ensure that our homeland defense efforts begin with consistent federal action to protect our borders." After how many years, Democrats are starting to talk like Republicans on immigration.

"The administration is falling behind in other critical areas: preserving the environment, keeping our workplaces safe, protecting family farms, keeping jobs in America." The environment is doing quite well. Because of technological advancement that allows us to do more with less land, as well as conservation spurred by the free market, we don't need to cut down as many trees, and we thus have more forest today than at any time since the 1940s. How are workplaces not safe, other than post offices that seem to produce a lot of lunatics? "Family farms" tend to be old-fashioned and inefficient, and they should be allowed to go under or be bought out. And "keeping jobs in America" is the tired old Kerry line from the debates, which is ignorant economics.

When Kaine talked about "rights endowed by our creator," is he talking about what liberals claim as rights? The right to health care, i.e. getting medical care at others' coerced expense? The right to work, i.e. the right to force a business to continue your employment no matter how unfit you are? What liberals' "rights" come down to is using the government to help yourself to others' pockets.

If Kaine and other Democrats really do want to "replace the division that's been gripping our nation's capital," then absolutely "we need a change." But in no way, after watching their shameless antics since President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada, are "Democrats are leading that reform effort" like Kaine claimed. If Democrats are serious about eliminating the partisanship, then their leadership can start by obtaining Congressional resignations from, in no special order, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin and Byron Dorgan (I include Dorgan for his belief in taxing oil company profits above $40 a barrel).

"...working to restore honesty and openness to our government, working to replace a culture of partisanship and cronyism with an ethic of service and results."

Before telling others to take the specks out of their eyes, Democrats would do well to remember names like Henry Cisneros, Ron Brown, Susan McDougal and Marc Rich.

Just in time to compete for the "Biggest idiots of 2005" award

Iraqi "insurgents," i.e. terrorists, have been holding a French engineer hostage for three weeks. The BBC now reports that his captors are threatening to kill him, clarifying something that his captors don't seem to know:

The channel said the previously unknown group had demanded French troops leave Iraq. France has no forces in the country and opposed the US-led war.

I really don't know what to say. Someone please give these guys a dinar so they can buy a clue.

Where was George?

Revisiting Ann Richard's inane question in 1988 about his father, this George Bush hasn't been around since sometime in the first half of 2003. From the whitehouse.gov transcript of his Veterans Day speech:

In the four years since September the 11th, the evil that reached our shores has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul and Madrid and Beslan and Taba and Netanya and Baghdad, and elsewhere....

All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random, isolated acts of madness -- innocent men and women and children who have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet, while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology -- a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision....

We know the vision of the radicals because they have openly stated it -- in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and on websites.

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, their "resources, their sons and money to driving the infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century: They hit us, and expect us to run....

With the greater economic, military and political power they seek, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction; to destroy Israel; to intimidate Europe; to assault the American people; and to blackmail our government into isolation....

Good, very good. He reiterated why we must struggle against the terrorists, and not just hope they'll leave us alone. He pointed to what Zarqawi and Zawahiri have said, specific examples of why they really hate us.

The terrorists did not leave innocent Jordanians alone. The victims were fellow Muslims, and hardly collaborators with Israel. If the terrorists killed them, why should we think the terrorists will leave Westerners and Western nations alone if we tuck tail and run?

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

Bush said what he ought to have said in the debate: "Look, Senator Kerry, even you and other top Democrats said Saddam was dangerous and needed to be disarmed!"

His speechwriters wrote a brilliant neo-conservative speech that exposed the now anti-war Democrats for the hypocrites they are. Michelle Malkin has a roundup of the speech's effect, namely, giving courage to those who supported removing Saddam from power but who seem to have lost their fortitude in the last couple of years.

And from President Bush's speech tonight at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage:

On September the 11th, 2001, history called on our nation to defend freedom once again. On that morning more than four years ago, Americans witnessed the violence and the hatred of a new enemy. We saw the terrorists' destructive vision for us and for all who love freedom. And in the face of this threat, our nation has made a clear choice: We will confront this mortal danger. We will stay on the offensive, we will not wait to be attacked again, and we will press on until this war is won....

Some might be tempted to dismiss the terrorist goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme -- but we cannot afford to dismiss them. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory....

First, we are determined to prevent attacks by terrorist networks -- by protecting the homeland, and working with our allies to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leadership....

Second, we are determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation....

Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes....

Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror....

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. If the Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and participation as free men and free women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow and eventually end. History has proven that free nations are peaceful nations, and that democracies do not fight their neighbors. By advancing the hope of freedom and democracy for others, we make our own freedom more secure....

The outcome of this war will affect every single American. And that makes it a subject of vital debate. And it's important to be clear about the facts. When our nation was attacked on September the 11th, leaders of both political parties recognized a new reality: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We had to take a hard look at every threat to America after September the 11th, and when we did, one stood apart: Saddam Hussein.

Under Saddam's dictatorship, Iraq was the only country in the world where American military pilots faced regular attack. Iraq was the only country that had used chemical weapons on its own people, invaded its neighbors, and fought a war against the United States and a great coalition. Iraq was only one of seven countries listed as a state sponsor of terror, and it was judged by intelligence agencies around the globe to possess weapons of mass destruction. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, ordering him to disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. When he refused, we had a choice: Do we take the word of a madman and forget the lessons of September the 11th, or do we take action to defend our country? Given that choice, I will defend America every time....

Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." Another senior Democrat leader said, "The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Here's another quote from a senior Democrat leader: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now.

Snopes has the best collection of various Democrat leaders' statements on Saddam and denying him the capacity for WMDs. My favorite:

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Right behind:

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Perhaps Democrats would like to sacrifice one of their own, and dismiss "unmistakable evidence" as just like Dan Rather's "unimpeachable source"?

I, for one, am glad to have the September 12th George W. Bush back. The next step is using the power of the "bully pulpit" -- which Arnold Schwarzenegger has failed to do in California -- and tell Americans the truth about our economy. The fact is that it's doing great. Katrina and the loss of much of New Orleans put hardly a dent into the total economic output. Oil and gasoline prices are dropping, and even when pump prices were over $3 per gallon, we found ways to cope.

Another thing the White House should do, but it can't because most Americans would not understand, is expose the myth that the trade deficit (particularly with China) is bad. The first step is a gag order on its economically illiterate staff (who admittedly are just trying to put the administration in a better light). I've covered this topic before, also offering some thoughts on one of Walter Williams' columns.