So, Am I correct in assuming that ceteris parabus #3(b) includes some specter of a tax increase that was left out. I don't see how you can spend more and have a smaller deficit without such a thing, (unless #3(a) impliedly includes modest tax cuts, or perhaps AMT reform) and I think it is only appropriate to make clear that #3(b) includes a tax increase which may very well slow the growth of the economy, granted increase treasury revenues, but slow the growth of the economy nonetheless, or that 3(a) could include valuable reforms to the taxing structure.

It's great to make an issue-focused decision, but I don't think you can totally ignore intangibles, such as trust and credibility. Because you never know what new issues will arise, I think these are at least as -- perhaps more -- important than straight up ideology, effectivenss, or stand on the issues. In my mind, Bush fails miserably on the trust and credibility. He bet the farm on Iraq having WMD (and/or meaningful ties to Osama) -- and lost. How can we not hold him accountable for the billions of dollars and thousands of lives spent in a campaign whose foundations have proven to be non-existent? I can agree with you that we need a president who will "finish the job" in Iraq, but I cannot fathom supporting the guy whose strategic misjudgement (?) negligence (?) arrogance (?) deception (?) got us into this situation in the first place.

80% of the president's job is taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and 80% of those laws set in motion relatively centrist policies. Competence is very important, and deserves a much higher weight than you are giving it...

'1) Which candidate will prove most successful in prosecuting the War on Terror?'

Probably makes little difference. I would like to see a bigger effort for the truly long term portion of the war on terror.

'2) Which candidate is more likely to finish the job in Iraq?'

Probably makes little difference. The 2 candidates policies are pretty similar at this point

'3) Which do I prefer, a moderate increase in government spending accompsnied by a massive increase in the budget deficit, or a massive increase in government spending accompanied by a moderate decrease in the budget deficit?'

Given that Congress will almost certainly remain Republican, I think a Democratic President is better in terms of gridlock. I think that Kerry is enough of a gradualist that there probably is not going to be any massive increase in government spending, and there is probably going to be a mild increase in taxes (although I would probably be impacted by that).

In the Bush case, I think you would see some worthwhile tax reform and spending cuts but the deficit would continue to increase.

'4) Which John Kerry -- the internationalist or the populist -- will govern his foreign economic policy? '

Internationalist, with occasional nods to populism. His changes will be modest and incremental like a proposed tax incentive for outsourcing.

For me, the reason not to vote for Bush is simple -- his disastrous prosecution of the war in IRaq. I would probably have gone back to my traditional apolitical status (never voting) if Bush had cleaned house on the neocons, including Cheney who gave him clearly bad advice. Since he hasn't, I intend to send a message with an anti-Bush vote.

"In my mind, Bush fails miserably on the trust and credibility. He bet the farm on Iraq having WMD (and/or meaningful ties to Osama) -- and lost. "

He didn't bet the farm. The farm is still there. Iraq had not yet become an imminent threat, which is exactly what Bush said, and now Iraq will never become an imminent threat.

We've still got the resources to carry on the fight, to do things such as deny nuclear weapons to Iran. Whether those resources will actually be applied in these vitally necessary tasks depends on who is President. I wouldn't bet on Kerry doing what needs to be done if I were you.

"Which do I prefer, a moderate increase in government spending accompsnied by a massive increase in the budget deficit, or a massive increase in government spending accompanied by a moderate decrease in the budget deficit?"

The long term cost of the government (and your taxes over the long term) are determined by government spending and interest. The differences between Bush's spending plans and Kerry's spending plans are such that the long term cost of the government is higher with a Kerry administration than with a Bush administration, even taking interest into account. The resources to pay for them will probably be less over the long term with a Kerry administration as well due to higher levels of regulation.

My thoughts on Dan's questions:

#1 -- I give this one to Kerry on grounds of competence. I feel that Bush and Kerry would be forced to make roughly the same decisions (persue Osama, sweet talk allies.) Bush might be more vigorous, but his pissing off of those who would help us make his less effective.

#2 -- Bush will never pull out if he can't say mission accomplished. I think there's a 10% chance Kerry would, if it were all falling apart. I don't like that 10%, but #1 is more important to our security than #2. As a counterweight, I do not believe that Kerry is as prone towards error as Bush. Nevertheless, I think Iraq's course has been set, and what we do from here on out will have little impact on the course of things. It's up to the Iraqis now.

#3 -- I think you ignore a third possibility -- Kerry proposes massive spending increases that are successfully opposed by the GOP. McCain and his allies are budget hawks, and not big on spending. And I think they'll hold any big spending ideas up,while letting some needed rescinding of tax cuts go through. If I am forced toanswer your question -- I think it's a wash, and I wouldn't use it to determine your vote.

4. Good question. But the man who gabs about Benedict Arnold CEOs and grumbles about NAFTA on the campaign trail is going to have a hard time reversing himself when that protectionist trade bill on his desk.

I think you're going to have a tough time, Dan...

Science, health care, poverty issues ... who cares?

Jury's still out on the WMDs. Didn't they remove 2 TONS of uranium from Iraq at the end of June? Didn't Iraq really try to buy uraninum from Niger acording to British intelligence?

1) Bush has killed 2/3 of al qaeda leadership. Atef is dead, KSH captured. Must find UBL/Zawhari -trying to do so now. Kerry is not serious about terrorism. Does anyone remember during the debates in the primary when he said that the threat of terrorism is exaggerated? Just yesterday, he said he didn't get briefed on the latest terrorist threat even though he was offered because he didn't have time!

2) Kerry more apt to opt out of finishing Iraq prematurely- said he prefers stability to democracy. With his pick of Edwards, he shows less seriousness. I guess charisma is more important than substance. Makes me believe more apt to follow polls for sure. Will wither under pressure.

3) Kerry could cause some gridlock if senate remains in hands of repubs but it is not certain that senate won't change hands. Kerry does plan a lot more spending than Bush has ever proposed and it would be more government funding healthcare (really bad idea) than defense. He'll kill important programs like missile defense and the bunker buster missile and probably redistribute that money to healthcare and education.

4) Business has seemed to react very negatively to the Edwards pick for VP so that can't be great. I think Kerry is going to be forced to be more protectionist.

Of course what Kerry says he will do on one day, he says the opposite the next.

One question:

How do we know Kerry is competent? He has been in the Senate for almost 20 years and doesn't have ONE important bill that he's authored?

Karen:

Kerry's foreign policy people are competent, or at leat they were when they were in the Clinton administration. Bush's have proven incompetent. That's enough for a judgment.

AM:

They were? How come al-qaeda grew during the 90s? What about all those terrorists attacks-wtc '93, Khobar towers, Cole, Embassy bombings, etc, etc.? How about the Sudanese offer of UBL? How about those three times they could have killed UBL in Afghanistan but they didn't? How about India/Pakistan both getting nukes? How about NK? Rwanda? Haiti? We are still in Kosovo but the soldiers would be home by December of that year, remember? I wouldn't agree that that team was competent.

"Jury's still out on the WMDs. Didn't they remove 2 TONS of uranium from Iraq at the end of June? Didn't Iraq really try to buy uraninum from Niger acording to British intelligence?"

No and No.

Karen:

Things like" competence" are always relative. If you are not yet convinced that the Bush Admin (no WMD, no relevant Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, no plan for peace, no real exit strategy in Iraq, etc.) is less competent than your left shoe, you will never be convinced. Has there ever been an Administration opposed by more well-respected experts? The scientists hate him, the economists think he's a joke, most of the polysci/fa guys think the Iraq plan was deeply flawed, etc. I mean, seriously, short of Bush getting on TV, stripping down to his underwear and declaring, "I'm for Global Thermonuclear War. Whee!," what would it take to convince you that this guy's incompetetent?

Kristjan:

uranium:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

Niger and uranium:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373567507

There are other articles along these lines but here's a sample.

In the 90s,we did not believe we were at war, and as a nation we behaved accordingly. That's the simple explanation for much of your litany. As for not getting UBL, the story, if true, lays blame on Clinton, not his people.

NK? Clinton's people did a deal, and NK got a couple of nukes. Bush's people have not done a deal,and NK has about 10 nukes. I'm not sure I'd use NK as an example here.

Rwanda? OK -- fair point. But I don't see we're accomplishing a lot more in today's similar situation in the Sudan.

India got nukes in the 70s. Pakistan stole nuclear secrets in the 70s. I wouldn't lay that one on Bill's team.

OK -- now with Bush, we have allies furious at us and an Iraqi occupation where much of the loss of life seems the result of a failure to plan for more troops, and a failure tounderstand the insurgency,and a dubious attachment to the War on Terror.

I'll go with Kerry on this issue, thank yoou very much.

Vote Kerry:
1. Terror: Bush is too polarizing and his prosecution to date, while eager, has been lame.

2. Iraq: A draw. Both pray for non-jihadist strongman and get out. (Heaven help us if Bush's prayer for a democratic mideast is answered; they'd all elect mullahs or jihadists.)

3. Budget: The reality is Congress will permit a paydown but not huge programs; think Clinton & Rubin. Kerry will copy them.

4. Internationalist or populist? Pragmatist internationalist. The guy's a bore but not a fool. Look for some small-time populist sops. Departure from Clinton template? Not gonna happen.

For you to consider: the worst drag on economy will be regulatory, mostly environmental. In my view worth it, probably a minus for you.

Ken wrote:

"Iraq had not yet become an imminent threat, which is exactly what Bush said, and now Iraq will never become an imminent threat."

On the contrary, there is a great chance that Iraq could become an imminent threat of an even nastier sort (to the US) than a tired Baathist regime.

If you aren't reading about the hotbeds of jihadis in Iraq (such as in Fallujah), then you are deliberately burying your head in the sand.

Even if the jihadis don't take hold of the country, there's a high likelihood of civil war, with consequences no one can predict. Including that jihadis may have control of a significant portion of the country.

Hence, it cannot be said that "Iraq will never become an imminent threat." It very well may be, and possibly in short order.

And, of course, all the possiblities above are brought to you courtesy George W. Bush.

Keef

AM:

I myself am a scientist and am aware that many scientists don't like Bush. So? Scientists are one of the most liberal groups around. They would most likely oppose any Republican administration. Not all economists think he's a joke. Many agree with taxcutting as stimulus, one point here is that Bush has to lower discretionary spending.

Most people thought Reagan was a dupe, too.

Karen:

As a scientist, precision must be important to you. So could you clarify whether the link you posted about Iraqi uranium concerns weapons-grade uranium, suitable for WMDs, or more commonly available low-grade uranium? If the former, this is of course of crucial importance to the debate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/m

"I think you ignore a third possibility -- Kerry proposes massive spending increases that are successfully opposed by the GOP. McCain and his allies are budget hawks, and not big on spending. And I think they'll hold any big spending ideas up,while letting some needed rescinding of tax cuts go through. If I am forced toanswer your question -- I think it's a wash, and I wouldn't use it to determine your vote."

Is this the same GOP that failed to successfully oppose spending increases proposed by George W Bush? Or are you figuring on a bigger GOP presence? Either way, given the same Congress, a difference in the spending proposals means a difference in the final outcome.

"On the contrary, there is a great chance that Iraq could become an imminent threat of an even nastier sort (to the US) than a tired Baathist regime.

If you aren't reading about the hotbeds of jihadis in Iraq (such as in Fallujah), then you are deliberately burying your head in the sand."

You mean the ones that got their asses handed to them a couple of months ago and scurried back to whatever hole they crawled out of?

"Even if the jihadis don't take hold of the country, there's a high likelihood of civil war, with consequences no one can predict. Including that jihadis may have control of a significant portion of the country."

The likelihood of an Iraqi civil war, already quite low, goes even lower if we take the next step and neuter the Iranians, who are backing the Iraqi troublemakers.

If Kerry tries to "stay the course" in Iraq and do nothing else, the Iranian-backed troublemakers will have a field day and do their damndest to start that civil war in Iraq. Of course, that might be Kerry's plan, since he'd get to blame it on George W. Bush.

(Yeah, we can play the conspiracy theory game too!)

The answer to the first question depends highly upon the answer to the question: why do they hate us? The answer is not because they hate our freedom. That is a stock answer insulting to anyone with an IQ higher than their pulse. The terrorists are reacting to Israel's intransigence, brutality, and military aggression. Duh! They are also reacting to our, for lack of a better word, economic and military hegemony. I mean, our military is spread all over the world in hundreds of countries, and having a huge military presence in the Mideast really pisses a lot of people off. How would you like it if a superpower had bases in your country (and treated you like an inferior species, as so many military personnel unfortunately do)?

Does that make me anti-American? Of course not. That's simply a canard thrown by those who don't have an adequate response. Look, anyone can be a terrorist. It's a criminal act requiring the motivation, the means, and the opportunity. It deserves more than a pat response designed to placate the rubes who are paying for George's excellent adventure.

Of course Kerry recognizes the threat of terrorism. However, I think that he'll probably get more results in the "war on terror" by acting less like a cowboy than Bush. He's going to inherit a lovely mess in Iraq, but since he's less likely to irritate the EU, UN, and others, he's more likely to invite the multinational cooperation--and investment--necessary to help stabilize the country, and to give the cover we need to pull our troops out w/o allowing the place to descend into anarchy or civil war.

Given the hole the federal government is in financially, the best we're going to do over the short term is to staunch the flow of blood. Yes, he's already on record as rolling back the tax cuts for those who earn over $200K/year. And why not? They don't need the tax cut as much as the poor need medical insurance, the cost of which people like you and I already pay in insurance premiums and taxes for emergency services provided to indigent patients and others. Overall, I'd rather pay a bit more than less in order to provide services sufficient to maintain social order and health (safety and welfare). Most reasonable people understand and agree, especially if there is a rational nexus between services and taxes paid.

Finally, Kerry will be an Internationalist in his foreign policy, and that's a good thing. Any international businessman, exporter/importer, etc. understands keenly the need to have good relationships with your trading partners and customers. Bush's impacts have not been good in this area, and the businesspeople trying to close deals abroad are keely aware of this. Why this fact is not more broadly reported, I don't know, but it is not insignificant.

"Bush has killed 2/3 of al qaeda leadership."

Who ran this tab? Sounds like something pulled out of thin air. Source?

AM, you will forgive me please, if after the unarguable unmitigated forign policy distater that was the Clinton MisAdministration,(Which was in fact responsible for the lead-up to 9/11) I don't stand up and cheer when you aver you'd like more of the same.

I'd like to probe the competence thing a bit.

1) Does the mere lack of agreement from allies about the war indicate incompetence, or are we just saying that the war was wrong? France, after all, offered us support in some form so long as we didn't persue another UN resolution. Are the doves really going to argue that the competent solution would have been NOT to go to the UN?

2) We have no way of writing a counter history to the prosecution of the military objectives in Iraq under a Kerry administration. One could argue that the Clinton team did just fine so long as boots were not on the ground, but failed every time boots were required to meet an objective. Or, again, are we just saying that the war was wrong?

3) It is highly speculative to argue that reconstruction would have gone glassy smooth under a different administration. Mistakes have been made, but it is very hard to point to what Kerry would have done specifically that would make things so much better.

4) Fiscally, it is probably a wash. Your choices are high taxes and high spending or high deficits and high spending.

5) Ahh, the civil liberties thing. I submit that in the wake of 9/11, the political pressure to 'do something' was so great, you don't escape some version of PATRIOT in the near term anyway. Dems are every bit the drug warriors the Repubs are. I don't see a compelling difference.

I guess my point is that often competence means not persuing MY agenda effectively. A glorious success of this administration was telling the world to shove Kyoto where it belongs, and that irritated our allies as much as the Iraq thing did. I wouldn't call that incompetence, though.

Speaking of the budget, there's a memo floating around in cyberspace that (assuming it's legit) lays out the post-election strategy of Bush to offer massive cuts to the discretionary side of the budget, no doubt in response to the massive costs of Iraq ($121 billion as of today) and the huge tax cuts. This will no doubt cause a HUGE ruckus, certainly resulting in the loss of the Senate in a few years and possibly the House. So, Bush has about two years to strip the car down to its chassis before the backlash shows results.

Frankly, by that time, I may have moved to Canada. I increasingly feel strongly that this country is becoming no longer worth defending, and I really don't like that feeling.

Seth, honestly, I do not see the point of the distinction. By the way, I have a great deal of scientific training, including a degree in physics from Dan D.'s own U. of Chicago, and value precision. My point is, what would Iraq be doing with several tons of uranium? Iraq is sitting on oilfields, so it does not need uranium for electrical power production. The uranium didn't get there by accident.

I have not spent a great deal of time thinking about this, but the main reason I can think of for Iraq to have several tons of uranium is for weapons production. In this case, if the uranium was indeed weapons grade, then a bomb of some sort is almost certainly floating around somewhere, as producing the weapons grade material is one of the most difficult aspects of making a nuclear weapon. If it is not weapons grade, then it merely is virtually conclusive evidence that Iraq was trying to make nuclear weapons, and we were able to shut the program down before, we hope, a weapon was produced. If the later is the case, then I am very, very glad we went into Iraq and stopped the program. If you think about, you should be glad too.

"Kerry's foreign policy people are competent"

Ah, something new we can debate. Policy people execute and advise, they dont decide. My question is, how do we know we are going to get Clinton/Holbrooke foriegn policy, and not Carter/Vance foriegn policy? What evidence is there? All we have to go by is Kerry's record. Kerry was a major anti-war protester in Vietnam, opposed everything Reagan did in the Cold War, and voted against Gulf War 1. Does that sound hawkish and realist to anyone here?

Seth:

I am a biological scientist and have absolutely no expertise in this area. Totally different species from what I do. They have said enriched uranium but they don't specify how enriched. Based on the language though, they make it seem like they took serious precautions since they kept it pretty secret and we are only hearing about it after the fact. So it must have been somewhat of a concern. They obvious wanted to complete the removal before anyone found out about it being there. It could be significant. But they did find an enriching centrifuge under some rose bush in the beginning of the war, right? Also, they found those atropine injectors early on too in the war so obviously at least the Iraqi army thought there were chemical weapons that were to be used on US soldiers originally. Atropine is the antidote to the nerve gases. We'll see what this means. I just don't think the die has been cast about whether there were WMDs or not.

"Kerry's foreign policy people are competent, or at leat they were when they were in the Clinton administration."

Yikes. I'm glad I didn't bring up Clinton's foreign policy because then I would be subjected to "It isn't about Clinton". But while we are there, I would generally argue that Clinton's foreign policy was centered around the 'kick the problem a couple of years forward' principle. And I'm not sure that is so great.

As for "1) Which candidate will prove most successful in prosecuting the War on Terror?", hasn't Kerry repeatedly said that he doesn't think there really is such a war?

Allies? What allies? We haven't had any allies to speak of since the USSR went bust. Bush, Sr. put together a coalition because everyone was as petrified as we that Hussein would end up in Riyadh and control half of the world's oil. We are surrounded by enemies who fear and envy our economic power as well as a few psychos who fear (with good reason) our military power. The only way Kerry can "rebuild" a relationship with our "allies" is to bend over to accomodate them.

To a retrogrouch: Bye bye and good riddance.

My point is, what would Iraq be doing with several tons of uranium?

From the BBC news article that you are apparently unwilling to actually read:

The 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency.

Also, the focus on uranium is a complete red herring:

Uranium would not be suitable for fashioning [a dirty bomb], though appropriate material may have been among the other unidentified "sources".

But if you get so excited about uranium, why not discuss our own use of depleted uranium in weapons in Iraq? Shouldn't we then be concerned that terrorists are collecting the DU we pumped into Iraq? Supposedly in the 1991 war we left 320 metric tons of DU on the battlefield in Iraq. Some scientists and doctors claim this had had severe consequences for the health of many Iraqis, especially children playing with remnants of ammunitions.

But, yes, let's quickly forget all those 320 tons and instead get very excited over 1.7 (yeah!) tons of radioactive material found in Iraq.

Bill:

I can't remember the source. Just something I remembered seeing/hearing somewhere. But if you read the 911 Commission staff report statement 15 under al Qaeda today they mention that since our war on terror started funding for al qaeda has decreased significantly and since they no longer have bases in Afghanistan, they are less organized and have to resort to smaller operations. Sounds like a plus, no?

Seth:

I am a biological scientist and have absolutely no expertise in this area. Totally different species from what I do. They have said enriched uranium but they don't specify how enriched. Based on the language though, they make it seem like they took serious precautions since they kept it pretty secret and we are only hearing about it after the fact. So it must have been somewhat of a concern. They obvious wanted to complete the removal before anyone found out about it being there. It could be significant. But they did find an enriching centrifuge under some rose bush in the beginning of the war, right? Also, they found those atropine injectors early on too in the war so obviously at least the Iraqi army thought there were chemical weapons that were to be used on US soldiers originally. Atropine is the antidote to the nerve gases. We'll see what this means. I just don't think the die has been cast about whether there were WMDs or not.

I'm surprised that none of the high-quality commenters on this thread have adequately rebuffed "Karen"'s claims, so I will take the task upon myself.
On the first point---the existence of the uranium that in Iraq that was shipped out of Iraq by the US in recent months: to my knowlege, ALL of this uranium was in the the known stocks at Tuwaitha, where they had lain untouched for more than a decade (IAEA inspectors found the seals intact in 2002). As a matter of fact, 90 lb. of (I believe) high-grade uranium is unaccounted for precisely because of the US invasion: after the war, the Tuwaitha site was looted, because the US did not provide security for it. I have read that the uranium at Tuwaitha would have required enriching to be suitable for bombs. To remove the material from this monitored site and begin a secret enrichment program was no doubt considered infeasible by Saddam's government. This is the reason that an attempt to secretly purchase uranium from other sources was deemed plausible---he could not use that which he already owned.
The only thing the recent uranium lift underscores is the massive incompetence of the occupation; had the Tuwaitha site been properly guarded, we would have had an accounting for the radioactive materials stored there. Of course, in terms of the danger of the spread of uranium--whether for dirty bombs or nuclear weapons---Tuwaitha is a red herring. There are much more urgent concerns about the availably of these materials in the FSU.

On the point of the Iraq/Niger/Uranium axis of unsupported speculation, let me quote from the FT article:

"But among Lord Butler's other areas of investigation was the issue of whether Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler has concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence."

On the basis of this, you can conclude.... nothing, for now.
The report is not public, and the carefully worded sentence above does not indicate whether the original conclusion of the intelligence services was correct---merely that it was justifiable. Furthermore, the article does not suggest that Saddam actually acquired the uranium, which is surely the test. Of course Saddam had the desire for nuclear weapons, but the containment program and sanctions, as well as the Clinton bombing in 1998, had effectively de-toothed him.

Karen, you claim to be a scientist. Well, I consider myself one as well (I am a mathematician). Throwing around articles that have the proper buzzwords in them is not my idea of scientific argument; nor should it be yours.

Mark in Mexico: "To a retrogrouch: Bye bye and good riddance."

And a big fat wet kiss to you too, Sweetcheeks. So good to know that the wingnuts have the courage to engage in fact-based, civil debate instead of mindless ad hominem attacks against anyone who doesn't goose-step in the same direction as you do. Are you part of the problem instead of part of the solution? And what indeed are you going to fume about next when we finally knock Bush off his throne?

Bithead:

I will stand up and cheer that I am not the only one on this thread who isn't afraid to bold my typos...

Ken:

It is hard for a President to argue with his own party about spending, and visa versa. It's easy to cut spending when the spending is proposed by the other party. So, yes, I believe a GOP faced with a Democrat in the White House will suddenly remember its cost conscious heritage.

Mark B:

The usual rap on Kerry is that he is Mr. Flip/flop. Are you arguing that he's pricipled and THAT'S what's scary? If Holbrookes are whispering in Kerry's ear, and as long as he does not sacrifice major popularity by doing so, I think he will follow what his advisors tell him. He's not a "I'll do what's right and damn the consequences" kind of guy.

Which candidate will prove most successful in prosecuting the War on Terror?

Coud one possibly do worse in this area than GWB?

gw, I resent your implication that I did not read the article. I did read it. If you look at it closely, you will note that the 1.77 tons of uranium is mentioned as being separate from the "about 1,000 sources" of radioactive material for "a 'huge range' of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes." Here is the full quote:

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

Someone said that Iraq can now never become a threat to the U.S.

Quite the contrary. Iraq was not a serious threat before the invasion. Now the lid has been taken off. The most serious threat to U.S. national security for the foreseeable future is stateless fanatical Islamic terrorism. There was little or none of that in Saddam's Iraq. Now there is, and there will almost certainly be more coming.

On top of that, the whole Iraq episode will be an albatross around our necks for many years to come: overextending our military, inspiring fanatical hatred of the U.S. across that Islamic world, and draining financial resouces that could be used to make us stronger against terrorism and other threats. Bush took a country that wasn't a threat to us and turned it into one.

OK, scientists, what volume does 1.77 tons of enriched uranium fill, and what are the non-military uses of such material?

And how much enriched uranium does Israel have, and what percentage of this has been created for/diverted to military uses? I'll betcha it's a lot more than 1.77 tons.

"The usual rap on Kerry is that he is Mr. Flip/flop. Are you arguing that he's pricipled and THAT'S what's scary? "

AM, his rhetoric flip flops, but his default position is pretty obvious. All things being equal he's a dove who tends to believe we bring bad things on ourselves. True, above all, he's a politician yes, no mystery there. But a president has to make snap decisions and shape his administration to his ideals. There wont always be time for focus groups. If Iran grabs a peice of Iraq and announces it has a nuclear bomb, decisions need to be made in minutes and seconds. There isnt always time to consult Jaques Chirac.
Besides that, you cant finesse every situation. Look at Iraq, we played footsie with the world for over a decade until Bush cut the Gordian knot. Does Kerry have the courage to do that if necessary (even if you dont think Iraq was necessary, surely there are forseeable situations where it would be necessary)? I look at Kerry, and I simply cant find a man who will say damn the torpedoes, _if necessary_. Better to have a president who does it too much than one who wont do it at all.

1. Bush has been and would remain OBL's best recruiter.
2. In Iraq Job One is elections. Unlikely that an elected government would want a continued US troop presence. Iraqis are already so much in control it's hard to see either B or K having more than a marginal effect. If skill and finesse are what matter, Bush's record is mixed at best.
3. Doubt your notion of a massive increase in government spending. Kerry will confine himself to his health care plan financed by a rescinding of the tax breaks for the top 1%. Evidence: what Clinton did + what Kerry says. EVen the Democratic platform won't have big spending proposals except (a big exception, but a sensible one) for health care.
Bush will for sure make his tax cuts permanent--decrease revenues yet further. His spending has been generous and the political configuration if he wins will remain the same.

In the past few comments I have seen the following remarks:

From the BBC news article that you are apparently unwilling to actually read

Karen, you claim to be a scientist. Well, I consider myself one as well (I am a mathematician). Throwing around articles that have the proper buzzwords in them is not my idea of scientific argument; nor should it be yours.

So good to know that the wingnuts have the courage to engage in fact-based, civil debate instead of mindless ad hominem attacks against anyone who doesn't goose-step in the same direction as you do.

As regards the rumor of massive domestic cuts, well, let's see what he's done so far...

Non-Defense, Non-Homeland Discretionary spending under George W. Bush

15 percent in 2001 (Proposed by President Clinton)
6 percent in 2002
5 percent in 2003
4 percent in 2004
0.5 percent for 2005

I fail to see this as a bad thing.

FOREIGN POLICY. "The war wasn't fought in order to bog down US forces while enhancing Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf, but that's what it did and that's what's important."
Doesn't Yglesias here sum up Bush's accomplishments quite accurately? Why vote for more of that?
DOMESTIC POLICY. It's insurance for every kid + government reinsurance to provide catastrophic coverage and a Clinton like rescinding of Bush's cuts for the top 1% v. a social security reform that reduces revenues a sixth, more tax cuts, and more spending.
But it's doubtful the Republican House will give Kerry a health care program he can sign, let alone the tax cut.

Daniel,

The number one reason to not support Bush is the ill-adviser Iraqi adventure. Was Saddam Hussein a
bad man? Yes.

Was a change in Iraq policy called for? Yes. (Cuba,too)

Was an invasion the way to go? No, Hell no.
One very important reason to forego war is the cost involved. I am speculating that before this is all said and done we will have spent at least a Trillion (12 zeros) handing a third world hellhole from one formerly US-backed repressive state to another. How many missions to mars will that buy you, I wonder. What hell, why not use it to pay off some of the debt?

This is the surest course to an inevitable correction in the market of global power. American hegemony, and possibly, it's very existance as a dominant player in the world are endangered by the blunders of this administration.

Think about it,
cary

Think about

Average Joe: Thus, the question remains, what was Iraq planning to do "with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium."

First, my apologies, I did indeed lump the uranium and the 1000 other sources together where the BBC article did not do that.

Your question has essentially been answered already by marky. Some more background and details about uranium grades is here and here.

The critical paragraphs:

the United States informed the atomic agency June 30 that about 1.8 tons of uranium, enriched to a level of 2.6%; 6.6 pounds of low-enriched uranium; and about 1,000 highly radioactive sources had been transferred June 23

Compare with:

By international convention, uranium enriched to less than 20-percent U-235 is classified as LEU that is not useful in making fission weapons.

Before another misunderstanding arises, this means that ALL of the 1.8 tons of uranium was low-enriched uranium or LEU (anything under 20 % U-235 counts as LEU). What's not clear is why the 6.6 pounds are separated in the report as LEU since the rest is also LEU. It is possible that there is a mistake in the reporting. (Evidently the AP journalist who put this together was too lazy to look up the definition of LEU.)

Oh, and here, for laughs, is how the Boston Globe managed to mangle this story:

U.S. transferred nearly 2 million tons of uranium from Iraq to U.S. without U.N. authorization

Notice how "metric" has become "million" in the headline (but not in the text).

Sigh. (Can we just fire all the journalists and start over?)

"Marky":
Sources?

My whole point in bringing up the uranium articles was because as I've said in the past few posts, I don't think we can close the door on whether Saddam had WMDs or not. But thanks for the attempt at questioning my scientific argument skills, I'll make sure I keep you in mind the next time I publish a paper.

"The report is not public, and the carefully worded sentence above does not indicate whether the original conclusion of the intelligence services was correct---merely that it was justifiable. Furthermore, the article does not suggest that Saddam actually acquired the uranium, which is surely the test. Of course Saddam had the desire for nuclear weapons, but the containment program and sanctions, as well as the Clinton bombing in 1998, had effectively de-toothed him."
Wasn't the whole hullabaloo, those famous 16 words, about whether they actually sought uranium in Africa, not whether they actually bought it? Implying that Saddam had intentions of recreating his nuclear weapons program? That was the whole point that Bush included that in his speech. The idea of preemption was to prevent Saddam from getting a bomb because we wouldn't attack him if he succeeded.
Is it OK then for Saddam to attempt to purchase uranium but not actually purchase it? You MUST be voting for Kerry. That's a lot of nuance.

John Kerry, if he were truly a realist, would recognize that our 'allies' arent opposing us because they dont like us. They oppose us because it is in their interest too. 50,000 NATO troops arent going to go streaming to Iraq, nor a solid front against Iran and NK no matter how well Kerry speaks French and how long he apologizes for being a boorish American.
I wouldnt sleep easily until he understood:

"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
Ambrose Bierce

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own neccessities but of their advantages."
Adam Smith

"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Sir Winston Churchill

"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights."
Napoleon

Karen, there is very little evidence to support WMD in Iraq. Scientists take the default position of skepticisim. You aren't doing that. Moreover, as a biologist, you should be well aware of how Bush makes decision on policy matters, such as stem cells or sexual education. So I'm not sure why the foul ups in Iraq should come as a surprise to you given his record in science.

"Allies? What allies? We haven't had any allies to speak of since the USSR went bust."

"Kerry says he'll get briefed 'tomorrow or the next day.'"

Look at it from kerry's point of view (i) he can't afford to piss off either wing of his party and (ii) he doesn't want to say anything that will constrain him if and when he has to do the necessary. So he says the blandest thing possible and trashes Bush, the only safe position among Democrats these days.

Do you really think it has escaped Kerry's notice that we have no allies except Blair? Or take him literally when he says he hasn't been briefed? Bear in mind that Nader lurks ready to embrace disaffected Michael Moore Democrats. Given the range and ferocity of Democratic opinion on this issue, we'd be foolish to expect candor, and he'd be foolish to provide it.

Karen: Is it OK then for Saddam to attempt to purchase uranium but not actually purchase it?

It is not ok for Saddam to attempt it either.

But it is not ok for the President to make a big deal out of this alleged attempt by putting it into the SOTU address when this attempt has not been corroborated and when our own intelligence agencies don't find the sources reliable.

This is yet another instance of Bush apologists here defending things that even the administration is not defending anymore.

Please tell me why you aren't supported by the White House with convenient press releases. Oh, maybe because the press releases would have to read something like "Sorry, but we were wrong to say it was wrong, because it might actually be true after all, except we still don't really know and the CIA still won't believe it, and in any case we really didn't know at the time the President said it"?

I'm always amazed at the low standards to which Bush supporters hold their man.

"Given the range and ferocity of Democratic opinion on this issue, we'd be foolish to expect candor, and he'd be foolish to provide it. "

Good lord, this thing really is a psychosis. So you're telling me, despite all evidence to the contrary, John Kerry isnt a standard liberal 'progressivist', UN-loving, Chirac admiring, negotiate till the darkness falls, Neville Chamberlainesque Euro-bot that he has consistantly proven himself to be over his career, but in fact he's a hard nosed hawk just playing the role to keep the Deanites from mutiny?

There is Bush Derangement Syndrome, but this must be Kerry Projection Psychosis: to see in John Kerry whatever you need to see in order to rationalize voting out Bush.

I will stand up and cheer that I am not the only one on this thread who isn't afraid to bold my typos...

(grimace)
Alas, that's one of the CLEANER things I've typed (typoed) today.
What amazes me, is that despite typing my HTML tags manually, I don't drop them with anywhere near the frequency that I make other sorts of typos. Perhaps it's the programmer in me.

I am a fairly fast hunt peck and cuss typist, able to type at a rate of around 40 words per minute, and if I really push it, I can get to around 70 wpeds oer nimute in bursts, though I'm apparently not as accurate..... (Chuckle)

Before heading off for some, I hope, fun time on Friday evening, here is an outstanding post that analyzes some of the issues concerning Iraq that have been discussed in this thread. In particular, it analyzes the intelligence behind claims of connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and how these claims relate to similar claims concerning the Saudis. Perhaps the most interesting part, which I can not adequately excerpt, is a brief discussion of the role of analysis and leaking (they are related) in intelligence.

The comments are also outstanding. The author makes several responses to the commenters. One comment that the post author makes I found particularly interesting. He claims that Saddam actually ordered WMD use on coalition forces and that members of the Republican Guard believed that other Republican Guard units had, in fact, deployed WMDs. I will freely concede that the comments section of a weblog is NOT necessarily the best, most reliable source of information on a controversial topic, yet I have read other pieces by the author, Dan Darling, and he has always been fairly reliable in the past. Thus I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. The claim is certainly interesting and, given the source, probably worth investigating (by someone more qualified than me).

P.S. gw, the articles on uranium grades where interesting. This is the kind of information that I like to get when I read the comment sections of weblogs. Thanks.

No, we have not found a smoking gun pile of sarin gas missiles made in 2001 in the center of Baghdad.
Sorry, if I'm not defaulting to the most skeptical position that you think I should have but I'm looking at it from the perspective that the entire global community said he had WMDs. I just find it impossible at this point to believe that there could be absolutely, positively nothing there. Not all reports are out.

Not knowing with metaphysical certainty but assuming Hussein had an arsenal or weapons and was working on more (as the Brits, the Russians, and the CIA assured us) was an intolerable threat. Period.

"Bush has killed 2/3 of al qaeda leadership."

Who ran this tab? Sounds like something pulled out of thin air. Source?

This is a standard RNC talking point, one that pops up time and again from their allied pundits. It's a number based on an understanding of the "al-Qaeda ledership" as it stood in the summer of 2001. It's true, we've managed to take out two thirds of Bin Laden's inner core, as it stood in the summer of 2001.

The problem with this, of course, is that all of the people killed or jailed have been replaced by *other* terrorists in the meantime. By my reckoning, we've taken down the "#2 man" in al-Qaeda three times now.

More importantly, al-Qaeda has evolved from a classic hierarchy to a set of autonomous cells. Even if we were able to take out Bin Laden and all of his immediate aides, that wouldn't kill the beast now. It's transformed into something with an entirely different and entirely more intractible structure. We missed our shot at beheading al-Qaeda at Tora Bora, and no matter how many "leaders" we catch now, we still have the problem of the vast surge of foot soldiers out there, ready to strike us with or without the central command.

" This is an administration that controlled all three branches of government for a majority of the first term -- and they felt confident enough in their political position to piss off Jim Jeffords less than three months into office. Compared to most post-war governments, the Bush administration had fewer constraints on its governing coalition."

Dan, I think the weakness referred to is in reference to the GOP's need to please all their core constituencies, because they couldn't afford to lose any votes or money in the 04 election.

They control Washington, but they are rendered subservient to their contributors and activists.

So, to keep them happy, they've been spending like crazy and pursuing things like the FMA.

The GOP isn't strong enough to stand up for the principles they used to proclaim.

Karen thinks I'm nuanced for not accepting an unsupported assertion that Saddam was attempting to purchase uranium (incidentally, judging from some VERY careful wording by Blair, I would guess that this attempt was quite a few years ago). Well, of course she's right... and I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old either. Nor, for that matter, do I believe that abstince based education is scientifically valid, or that abortion causes breast cancer. I am most definitely NOT a Republican when it comes to matters of science. It's hard to imagine that Bush has more than single digit support among people with Ph.D's in science.

"It's hard to imagine that Bush has more than single digit support among people with Ph.D's in science."

He's probably popular among the Ph.D's who work on nuclear weapons, since he's improved their job prospects considerably.

Karen, the uranium you speak of was the leftovers from Tuwaitha, from the long-dormant program which had already been inspected.

My question to you is, why did it take so long for Bush to have this stuff secured? We knew it was there. It wasn't hidden.

If it's such a big deal, why did Bush wait for over a year to move it out of Iraq? The material was completely unguarded for much of the time, and open to looters.

"The material was completely unguarded for much of the time, and open to looters."

Whats with the newfound interest in Saddams toys?

Whats with the newfound interest in Saddams toys?

Mark, just as in the other thread (part I, if this is part II), your double standards are baffling.

Let's recapitulate:

1) We knew Saddam had LEU left-overs at Tuwaitha
(low-enriched uranium, not suitable to produce weapons, but nonetheless not exactly something you'd want terrorists to get hold of).

2) We go in, take over, we forget about the LEU. It wasn't one of the stated reasons we went to war for after all.

3) Looters get hold of some of the stuff. Rumsfeld says free people are free to do bad things.

4) We finally secure the stuff and fly it out without permission from the UN.

5) Extra, extra, hold the presses - uranium found in Iraq, war justified after all!

But let me guess - this doesn't strike you in any way as hypocritical.

Those hadn't been Saddam's toys for quite some time; they were under IANA seal. (And yes, those seals were verified during the inspection period.)

The material became unguarded after the US invasion. What's so hypocritical about being concerned about that?

To all of the fence-sitting conservatives out there:

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

I'll take issue with one premise: That president Kerry would be gridlocked by a Republican House and Senate.

Don't be so sure. Essentially the same group of elected officials started spending tax dollars like the world was going to end starting in 1998, not coincidentally right after they figured out that the standard Washington accounting tricks would allow them to tell the American people that the budget was in "surplus". I'm not even sure they wouldn't pass a tax increase judging by the RINO-atorium that capital hill has become these days.

Neither party is going to do a darn thing about spending, be assured of that. But what a Kerry/Edwards administration will do is subvert our foreign policy to the UN, the International criminal court and various other world government schemes. No true conservative could vote for something like that.

And don't wax so poetic for living in "peaceful" times. The 1990's were a time of obliviously ignoring the obvious, leaving us where we are today. Does any conservative really want to return to the days in which we pass up putting a bullet in Osama Bin Laden's brain because we "don't have enough evidence"? The law enforcement approach (that Kerry advocates) to terrorism completely breaks down when the terrorists are willing to kill themselves. Why haven't we prosecuted Mohammed Atta yet? We know he did it.

If some of you were around in 1780, we'd still be a British territory.

Jor,
"Look at it from kerry's point of view (i) he can't afford to piss off either wing of his party and (ii) he doesn't want to say anything that will constrain him if and when he has to do the necessary. So he says the blandest thing possible and trashes Bush, the only safe position among Democrats these days."

Good points, both. Not sure that I agree completely, but it is certainly possible. You raise the question, then, just what does he really stand for and just what will he do? At least with Bush, we pretty well have a known quantity. He will take action, and quickly, and unilaterally, if necessary. Kerry? I'm not so sure. I don't want to see even one, let alone 3000 or more American citizens die and I don't think that is going to happen under GW Bush. I think he has taken and will take the proper steps, as he sees them, to protect us, and those living in Canada, including ex-pats.

Thanks for the comment from you, Average Joe.

To a retrogrouch: I'll just goose-step on out of here, now.

Those who claim that Kerry has a law enforcement approach to terrorism are mis-stating his position. Russert asked him the same question on Meet the Press and Kerry said that he believed that the war on terror was fundamentally a law enforcement position in terms of tracking down terrorists, but (paraphrasing) when you know where they are, you send in special forces to deal with them. From that statement, it appears clear that what kerry is saying is that a law enforcement approach is required to track down terrorists (wiretaps, tracking funds, good old fashioned detective work), and then you send in the army. That is hard to argue with.

Incidentally, if (heaven forbid) there was a further terrorist attack on US soil, how would Bush regard ? Judging by his track record so far, he's about as likely to invade Mexico as to invade the actual perpetrator of the attack. [ I'm doing Bush an injustice here, but you get the point.]. Focus is absolutely vital in the war on terror and Bush has not convinced me that he possesses this focus.

Would Kerry be different ? His foreign policy team looks pretty solid. I would have said the same about the Bush team, of course, and they ended up screwing the pooch over Iraq. But give me a known incompetent team and an unknown team with some record of competency, and I know where to go.

Why would you vote for Kerry and Edwards? Are you going to tell me that they know something Bush does not. Edwards has been noted on record stating that the US should act unilaterally against Iraq because Saddam was a threat. Your man Clinton, who I thought did a great job listening to the Republican Congress, thought many the same things that this president has stated. So throw your Iraq agruments in the toilet because that is where they belong. There is too much hard evidence for all these great Democrats to change their tune without getting hurt.

Another question for the Democrats, and in Democrats I mean Liberals because you can not be a moderate or even conservative without being laughed upon. You have a great history rooted in Patriotism, now you hate a President who has done similiar things that FDR has done and nowhere near what Truman did, but he is labled a murderer of innocent life in Iraq. How about all the Japanese who died because he wanted to save American soldiers' lives. If Truman was Republican and did that now, he would be hung by his neck. You liberals seem to forget history, and as they say, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Finally, why would Kerry be a better President. Is it his hair? Who knows? Is it the fact he served 4 months in Nam? In that case, my uncle who was there almost a year deep in the jungles is more qualified than Kerry according to some.

Honestly, all I care about is being safe. I was here in New York for BOTH attacks on the Trade Center(93 and 01). 9/11 was the most horrifying incident in my life. I know when and where I was at the moment when the first tower fell. I wondered if my dad was there and if he was alive. He was, but there were some people I know who weren't as lucky. So tell me, what can Kerry do that Bush has not done and continues to do? Here in New York we are always at "Orange" wondering if are going to get hit again, waiting for the other shoe to drop. Politics is not about this garbage you read about in the papers or on the net, it is about the people. Who gives a shit what Kerry did in Nam? That is not going to save us. It takes a strong man to do what it is unpopular for the greater good. Many men have done so. Did America want to go to war in the 40's? No. We did anyway and our loses were great. We saved many people in that war and continue to do so around the world.

Now are you going to say the UN can help? The only thing the UN is good for is saying much and doing little. Is Kerry going to go to the French for help? That is like bringing a blind man to a strip club. What is the point?

Here is great question. What does Kerry stand for? What has he stood behind with passion? Name one thing he has not played both sides of the fence on. Tell me one and we can debate. He changes his position so often, his own press secretary can not explain some of his positions.

Thank you and Good Night

GO YANKS BOSTON SUCKS.

Since people talked about science and scientists:

Scientists Say White House Questioned Their Politics

Dr. Gerald T. Keusch said that frustration led him to resign last year from the directorship of the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Keusch said the procedure for appointing members of advisory panels changed markedly with the change of administrations in 2001.

Dr. Keusch, who became director in 1998, said that before Mr. Bush took office, he proposed candidates and if the director of the National Institutes of Heath approved, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration invariably signed off on the nomination. But under the Bush administration, he said, Secretary Tommy G. Thompson's office rejected 19 of 26 candidates, including Dr. Torsten Wiesel, a Nobel laureate.

Dr. Keusch said that when he questioned the rejection, he was told that Dr. Wiesel had signed too many statements critical of Mr. Bush.

Matt: Name one thing he has not played both sides of the fence on. Tell me one and we can debate.

From http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/security_record.html:

As a United States Senator, John Kerry has consistently fought for measures to protect the retirement security of America's senior citizens and keep Social Security strong. In recent years, those efforts have focused on reserving Social Security's surplus revenue exclusively for the use of the Social Security program.

Senator Kerry has fought against efforts to raid the Social Security trust funds for unrelated purposes, including tax cuts and spending increases.

[...]

In addition, Senator Kerry has consistently supported attempts to remove Social Security from general budget calculations so that the trust fund surpluses would not mask the size of budget deficits or artificially inflate the size of budget surpluses.

Whereas George W. Bush promised to do something similar during the 2000 campaign, but then broke his promise and blatantly lied about the justification for doing so: Losing the "trifecta" (the full article is also on Spinsanity).

June 18, 2002 It takes a brazen politician to make up a story that can be proven false and then to keep lying about it after being busted repeatedly. A case in point is President Bush's repetition last week of a story about a fictitious Chicago campaign statement, just days after his budget director was called on it by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.

As the New Republic's Jonathan Chait first reported and we, among others, also wrote about, Bush's claim that he listed three exceptions under which he would run deficits during a 2000 Chicago campaign stop -- war, national emergency or recession -- is blatantly false. No one has found any evidence that Bush made such a statement, and the White House has pointedly failed to provide any.

What makes this revisionist history so egregious is that Bush had actually promised that he would protect the Social Security surplus and not support deficit spending. But, as Chait recounts, when federal revenue projections declined in August 2001, Bush and his aides began listing exceptions justifying dipping into the Social Security surplus that the president had "always" supported. Then, Bush began using the mythical Chicago statement in October to defend himself against criticism of the overall budget deficits that seemed imminent.

Ok, now your turn: Name one thing that Bush has been consistent about. Hint: If it appears on this list, it's probably not a good example.

Oops, I should have previewed that. To clarify: The quote from Kerry's web site ends with "artificially inflate the size of budget surpluses." What follows is my text and then a quote from the Salon/Spinsanity article.

Voters' feelings about the candidates' "values" and "character" are going to be key to this campaign and will likely determine its outcome. It's not likely that either candidate's legislative and policy program will be decisive.

To a large extent we don't know what either candidate's program for the four years beginning next January will be. Neither do they. Bush if reelected will have large scale turnover in his Cabinet and administration; Kerry's foreign policy team is dominated by Clinton holdovers who will deal with what they find after the election. On domestic issues Bush has geared his program to galvanize his base for this election. Who knows what he will use to drive a domestic agenda in a second term? Kerry for his part has, like most Democratic Senators, spent his career trying first to guess what sympathetic interest groups want and then to give it to them. But his interest groups will want more than the government will be able to pay for, which means that from him, as from Bush, what we are likely to get is improvisation.

Take trade as an example. Kerry has had an orientation generally sympathetic to trade liberalization, reflecting the economy of his state and his ties to the entertainment industry. But in the Democratic Party as a whole there is probably more sympathy for protectionism. How does that conflict get resolved in the context of the negotiating strategy of a Kerry administration? We don't know now, and we won't know before the election.

It is of course unrealistic to expect a national discussion of every detail of federal government policy. But our more or less complete detachment of the way we elect our leaders from the things we expect them to do after they are elected is not a good thing either. It can lead to absurd results. George W. Bush became the favorite for the Republican nomination in 1999 precisely because his record was slender enough not to contain much that was offensive or controversial. And the striking thing about John Kerry's line the other day about he and Edwards being a better ticket because they have "better hair" isn't that it was funny, it was that some significant number of people are expected to factor that into their decision about whom to vote for.

"[Postrel argues] that a Kerry administration would expand the size of government even more than a second Bush term"

Kerry might *want* to, but with the Repubs continuing to hold at least the House (and even if they lose the Senate, still having all that's needed to filibuster it) he won't be able to.

Divided government is what restrains government spending, as each party blocks what the other wants. The record is pretty clear on that.

So as Bruce Bartlett has pointed out, if restraining the size of government is your concern, that's actually an argument for voting for Kerry.

So you're telling me, despite all evidence to the contrary, John Kerry isnt a standard liberal 'progressivist', UN-loving, Chirac admiring, negotiate till the darkness falls, Neville Chamberlainesque Euro-bot that he has consistantly proven himself to be over his career...

Excluded middle.

The alternative to Bush's style of international relations is what we like to call "diplomacy", where we go to, say, France or Russia, and say "we need to do this thing, and having your country on board would be a big help. What do you need from us to make that happen?" Then there's some negotiation and some compromise, and in the end maybe they go along and maybe they don't, but if it doesn't work out the way you want, you at least preserve some mutual respect and leave open the possibility of cooperating on some other project later.

For some strange reason, Kerry strikes me as someone who is smart enough to do that sort of thing, and to allow his secretary of state do that sort of thing.

"Divided government is what restrains government spending, as each party blocks what the other wants. The record is pretty clear on that."

Unfortunately, the facts don't back that up. With the exception of 1995-97 (in which the rate of growth of some government programs decreased but nothing was actually "cut"), the path of government spending has been going straight upwards since the 1930's regardless of the party in the White House.

Bush's "style" of foreign relations puts the interests of America above those of illegitimate international bodies that prop up and support brutal dictators and protect nations that support and harbor terrorists.

Funny, Bill Clinton went into Bosnia even though the French didn't give him permission. I guess letting the French dictate to America for several years while the situation got worse and worse is this thing called "diplomacy"? No thanks, I prefer that American foreign policy be determined by Americans.

Although Kerry's comment on the briefing is politically brain-dead --- let's face it, how useful would a Ridge briefing be? Ridge has defintiely fallen into the cry-wolf-syndrome. People don't listen, thats why they stopped changing the threat level -- it really was just late nite fodder.

However, since we have to choose between two candidates, let's put this in perspective. GWB, sat for SEVEN MINUTES reading a CHILDRENS BOOK, while the nation was under ATTACK. He then went on to lie about what he was doing over the next few days.

Matt (9:58 post) writes, "So tell me, what can Kerry do that Bush has not done and continues to do? Here in New York we are always at "Orange" wondering if are going to get hit again, waiting for the other shoe to drop."

First, let me say Red Sox Rule!

Er, actually my first point was to express some sympathy for living thru 9/11 in New York. As you may have guessed, I'm from Boston. While we didn't live thru what you did, we did spend hours and sometimes days, trying to figure out who exactly were on the planes that left from Boston. It was mindnumbing for me and some of my relatives.

Second. You ask what Bush has not done. Considering what happened to your city, it just seems obvious, friend. I mean, here in Boston, lots of us are extremely angry that Bush dropped the ball on fighting the people that actually DID attack us. How can you not be angry at the reduction in resources in Afghanistan that were redirected towards Iraq?? How can the debacle at Tora Bora not infuriate you?

Osama bin Laden slipped through the mountains because of Rumsfeld's little experiment with rapid, lightly armed special ops groups. I'm sure they have their place in military actions, but we had him cornered, dammit. We had the mastermind behind 9/11, the Cole, the African Embassies cornered! And because we didn't have nearly enough US troops, because we chose to rely on brave but untrustworthy Northern Alliance members, bin Laden slipped through.

And, after that point, all the most experienced troops and linguists were shipped to Kuwait to await the attack on Iraq. Now, of course, New York has to sit and tremble AGAIN because bin Laden's al Queda group, the one we left in Tora Bora, is threatening another spectacular attack.
Bless ya friend. Vote Kerry if you want the emphasis back on the people who actually attacked your city. Regardless of how you feel about Iraq, there was no damn reason to abandon Afghanistan to go fight it. It was a pre-emptive cuz maybe they will at some time do something to us kind of exercise and it cost us bin Laden, who is planning another round.

Was there ever a more appropriate time, post WW2 to go in with everything we had? Flood the skies with our entire airforce, roll in the damn tanks. Just plain scare the crap out of everyone until we got him?! Most of the world was with us in principle. Yet NATO was ready and we spurned their help. We sent in these small groups of special ops and rode around on horseback to Rumsfeld's delight. grrrrrr. Sorry to keep going on but, like Matt in New York, I was personally affected and when I think about the frigin light experimental touch we used, it just makes me crazy. It makes me crazy to think about now, in July 04, the same son of ##### is going to strike us again! Never mind not voting for Shrub, impeach the freakin idiot.

"The alternative to Bush's style of international relations is what we like to call "diplomacy", where we go to, say, France or Russia, and say "we need to do this thing, and having your country on board would be a big help. What do you need from us to make that happen?" "

To continue the thought... they give us a laundry list of seemingly reasonable demands which in practice are impossible to achieve, such as making peace in Israel and signing the Kyoto treaty. We gab for months and years, seemingly making just enough progress to continue but in fact doing nothing, the reason behind this being that the people we are negotiating with have more of an interest in opposing us than in aiding us, demands not withstanding. In the end there is a lot of talk and nothing gets done. Theres your Kerry/Chamberlain style UN diplomacy.
Nobody gives Bush much credit for the diplomacy of the highest order he has displayed in winning over former enemies to our cause such as Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and of late Saudi Arabia. _That_ is diplomacy, convincing and contriving so that the people you are negotiating withs interests become identical to your own aims. You dont hear talk like that out of Kerry or I would be less afraid of him. He is quite simply a rube.

"Although Kerry's comment on the briefing is politically brain-dead --- let's face it, how useful would a Ridge briefing be? "

Why do people assume a briefing to a high ranking senator/presidential candidate would remotely resemble a press conference as far as content? Come on, get real. Kerry gets details the public cant get.

"Flood the skies with our entire airforce, roll in the damn tanks. Just plain scare the crap out of everyone until we got him"

Well thank god Cali, for one, isnt running for president. You may recall the Red Army did exactly what you suggest and we see what happened to them. In fact every army since Alexander has been swallowed by Afghanistan. What you propose would have been a disaster of the highest order, wouldnt have killed any more Al Qaeda (plenty more Afghanis though), and would have probably been precisely what Bin Ladin wanted and expected, so he could give us a broken nose the way he did the soviets. Our strategy was beyond brilliant and will go down in history.

Well, gee, Mark. Seems to me for a strategy to be considered a success, never mind brilliant, it has to, you know, be successful. It has to work out like. How can you deem the thing successful when we didn't catch Mullah Omar or bin Laden? The Taliban are re-emerging in places without strong war lords. And, in places with strong war lords, women are back in their burkas without the right to work, go to school, etc. And, of course, bin Laden is still operating on the border and is busy plotting his next stupendous attack. Yeah, the Afghan campaign will go down in history, all right.

I was initially encouraged at how quickly Kabul fell and that innocent Afghani casualties were relatively low. But, we gave up the fight and didn't accomplish any of our goals. Just simply drew together our best and brightest and shipped em to Kuwait. Our military people are the first to admit that Tora Bora was a blunder of the first magnitude. I'm sure they (the ones in uniform, not the idealogues in suits) feel a great deal of shame at letting the person who directed the attack of our country slip thru their fingers. Especially when they realize that he will probably do so again in the next few months.

In the end there is a lot of talk and nothing gets done. Theres your Kerry/Chamberlain style UN diplomacy.

Right, now I remember when Kerry and Chamberlain came back with that whole "peace in our time" thing.

Nobody gives Bush much credit for the diplomacy of the highest order he has displayed in winning over former enemies to our cause such as Pakistan,

How dare you call Kerry an appeaser and then mention Pakistan.

Bush let Pakistan get away with giving nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, Libya, and who knows who else. Why? Could it be because the delivery of ObL before November is more important to Bush than preventing nuclear proliferation?

...and of late Saudi Arabia. _That_ is diplomacy, convincing and contriving so that the people you are negotiating withs interests become identical to your own aims.

You have a point there. I truly believe that Bush and the Saudis have exactly the same degree of interest in seriously combatting terrorism.

You dont hear talk like that out of Kerry... He is quite simply a rube.

rube, n.: an awkward unsophisticated person

Well, it definitely applies to one of the presidential candidates...

Mark, I suggest you listen to the Ridge talk publically, he said they hvae no "specific info", and not enough of a threat to raise the warning level. I don't see what they would realely discuss privately. This is about the 20th time we've heard him cry wolf -- many of them at very politically convienent times (c.f. recent issue of TNR on Bush and political timing).

Dan, I really have to wonder how you think a president who can't be bothered to read a 90 page report on how Iraq was a threat to us, BEFORE starting the war is more qualified to fight the wra on terror? Seriously, what are the qualities you want? Someone who repeats Terror, Terror, Freedom, freedom, Freedom over and over again in his speeches? Like what criteria are you using? It obviously isn't any performance grounded metric.

"'You may recall the Red Army did exactly what you suggest and we see what happened to them. In fact every army since Alexander has been swallowed by Afghanistan. .... Our strategy was beyond brilliant and will go down in history.'"

"Well, gee, Mark. Seems to me for a strategy to be considered a success, never mind brilliant, it has to, you know, be successful. It has to work out like. How can you deem the thing successful when we didn't catch Mullah Omar or bin Laden?"

Every army before us got stuck to the tar baby and wound up in the soup. *We* managed to get back to our briar patch.

It might be a really stupid thing to invade afghanistan in the first place, but if you can do it and come out in one piece even without achieving any of your goals, that's beyond brilliant, right?

Our military had no choice whether to go into afghanistan, they had their orders. But they managed to do it in a way that hasn't gotten them an utter defeat. That took brilliance, and they delivered.

Karen -- "Not all economists think he's a joke. Many agree with taxcutting as stimulus, one point here is that Bush has to lower discretionary spending."

The problem is, while it's true we have to lower discretionary spending, people *hate* to have their discretionary spending lowered. No politician can expect to win with a policy of "work harder, get less" unless it's for a war that the public has mostly signed on for. The public isn't willing to reduce their discretionary spending to support this war, the case for war wasn't made well enough.

Mr. Drezner:
From a perspective outside your 'loop', your fence is short of several pickets.

The representative of interests currently your President is a failed sports franchise holder. Your Vice President is Halliburton's Spiro Agnew.

Whichever lever you 'pull' will be rorted, electronically in the first instance, but if that doesn't work, Florida-style, remedy will be available via your Supremes.

The duck-shooter and colleagues, as we recall.

Your national (and personal) dilemma is banal.

Zimbardo & Slavich (2003) did an interesting study in your nation-state on schemas. It is apposite. Some 97% of viewers perceived an hotel and coffee shop, but avoided perceiving the suicide, central in frame.

That's where,collectively, 'you' are at.

Postrelize all you like, but an absent-minded French person got to her insights on fashion yonks ago.

Inadvertently, he stepped under a camion. Metaphor?

Try, in your own case, to reconsider Tversky-Kahneman. Or Brian Arthur.

Your rationality appears extremely bounded.

Karen -- "Not all economists think he's a joke. Many agree with taxcutting as stimulus, one point here is that Bush has to lower discretionary spending."

Non-Defense, Non-Homeland Discretionary spending under George W. Bush

15 percent in 2001 (Proposed by President Clinton)
6 percent in 2002
5 percent in 2003
4 percent in 2004
0.5 percent for 2005

You were saying?

Bithead, do you have a source for those numbers?

I’ve heard slightly different numbers but the trend has been consistent – the largest increases in non-D/HLS spending occurred when Democrats controlled the Senate and/or were able to threaten or use a filibuster (which is why the Medicare prescription drug benefit went from about $300 to $534 Billion) in each case to extract higher levels of spending. Keep in mind that before Jeffords defected, non-D/HLS spending was set to be about $15 billion lower than before.

What’s amazing is that there are some people who (snicker) believe that Kerry and Edwards after voting for this spending (or higher levels in the case of the $700-900 Billion Democratic alternative prescription drug benefit) would somehow would be more inclined to restrain spending, particularly if the Democrats regain control of the Senate or pick off the 4-5 liberal Republicans.

Bithead, never mind I found the source, it’s from the OMB:

“In the last budget year of the previous administration, 2001, as shown here, discretionary spending unrelated to defense or homeland security soared by 15 percent. With the adoption of President Bush's first budget, here, in 2002, the growth rate was reduced to 6 percent, then 5 percent the following year, 4 percent for the current fiscal year we're in, fiscal '04, and then in the President's 2005 proposal, to half of 1 percent.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040202-4.html

TW; Correct.

Matt,

Kerry the real soldier, who risked his life for others in Vietnam and then spoke his conscious when he returned, would have been better suited for action when we were under attacked.

Bush the cheerleader from Andover was scared stiff and could not react, crippled by REAL fear, then reacting like a scared hillbilly, going after any “darkie” thinking this is profound strategy?

There are men, and then there are boys who pretend to be men.

9-11 was probably the first time Bush ever confronted that type of fear. If it happens again, who knows how crippling it will be.

Kerry the real soldier, who risked his life for others in Vietnam and then spoke his conscious when he returned, would have been better suited for action when we were under attacked.

Bush the cheerleader from Andover was scared stiff and could not react, crippled by REAL fear, then reacting like a scared hillbilly, going after any “darkie” thinking this is profound strategy?

There are men, and then there are boys who pretend to be men.

9-11 was probably the first time Bush ever confronted that type of fear. If it happens again, who knows how crippling it will be.

Lots of folks claiming disaster in Afghanistan yet when I read this well documented article, I must disagree.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005398

retrogrouch,

If your love of this country is so easily displaced by political hatred, then by all means, leave America now. No need to wait for the election, is there?

Oh, and see you back here when you need elective surgery ;-)