Ranger from the North

Military historian Victor Davis Hanson has written a number of excellent columns in which he examines the impact our choice for president will have on the prosecution of the Global War on Terror, and America's eventual victory or defeat in this conflict. I highly recommend visiting Dr. Hanson's website and reading any or all of his posted writings. Here are a few excerpts that nicely summarize the choice faced by the American people in this election.

From Country at a Crossroads,

Had Lincoln lost the 1864 vote, a victorious General McClellan would have settled for an American continent divided, with slavery intact. Without Woodrow Wilson's reelection in 1916 — opposed by the isolationists — Western Europe would have lost millions only to be trampled by Prussian militarism. Franklin Roosevelt's interventionism saved liberal democracy. And without the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and his unpopular agenda for remaking the military, the Soviet Union might still be subsidizing global murder.

This election marks a similar crossroads in our history. We are presented with two radically different candidates with profound disagreements about how to conduct a historic worldwide war. We should remember that all our victorious past presidents were, at the moments of their crises, deeply unpopular precisely because they chose the difficult, long-term sacrifice for victory over the expedient and convenient pleas for accommodation (if not outright capitulation). We are faced with just such an option today: a choice between a president whose call for patience and sacrifice promises victory, and a pessimist stirring the people with the assurances that we should not have fought, and now cannot win, the present war in Iraq.

And from The Power of Will,

Meanwhile, we all vote. One candidate urges us to return to the mindset of pre-September 11 — law enforcement dealing with terrorists as nuisances. He claims the policies that have led to an absence of another attack at home, the end of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, idealistic efforts to extend freedom, and radical and positive changes in Pakistan, Libya, the West Bank, and the Gulf have made things worse. In contrast, the other reminds us that we are in a real war against horrific enemies and are no longer passive targets, but will fight the terrorists on their home turf, win, and leave behind humane government. No choice could be clearer. It is America's call.

Jack Kelly from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette weighs in on the "explosives may or may not be missing from a munitions depot in Iraq" story, and The NY Times' and CBS's disgraceful tactics and inaccurate reporting of the events in this story.

Also, ealier this week, James Glassman and Bill Kristol reacted to the the U.N., CBS, and The NY Times trying to influence the election with this highly suspect story, and Team Kerry gleefully running with it, even though what actually happened at Al-Qaqaa is not yet known. These paragraphs from Mr. Glassman's column are great:

Last Sunday, the Washington Post buried a remarkable article by Bob Woodward that listed 22 questions that the nation's top investigative reporter wanted to ask Kerry. The questions, Woodward wrote, were "based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations."

Woodward began seeking the interview in June. He had already spent three and a half hours with the president. At first, Kerry's aides said the interview would happen, but, after months of stringing Woodward along, Kerry changed his mind. "The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers," wrote Woodward.

We'll just have to take Kerry's word for it.

The truth, however, is that Kerry has never offered an alternative strategy for Iraq, except to say that he would work more closely with France and Germany, countries that were not going to hold Saddam to account under any circumstances.

Now, as a result of his exploitation of the questionable New York Times story, we know a bit more. The clear implication is that, in a Kerry administration, the 380 tons of weapons would not have been lost; they would have been secured -- even without an invasion. A miracle!

As is Mr. Kristol's concluding paragraph,

It also now turns out that CBS 60 Minutes was planning to echo the New York Times story two days before Election Day. So what we have is an attempt by the New York Times, CBS, and a U.N. agency to work together to promote a very likely false story to damage President Bush's reelection prospects. Perhaps no one should be surprised that the liberal media and the United Nations are willing to go to quite extraordinary lengths to promote Kerry's prospects against Bush, but their behavior is not the issue. The issue is Kerry's willingness to advance allegations that his own campaign acknowledges may not be true.

One of Senator Kerry's recent positions on Iraq seems to be that sanctions and inspectors were working so there was no need to remove Saddam's regime from power by force. OpinionJournal takes a look at the U.N. oil-for-food scandal and they say not so much. After providing some of the scheme's details, they conclude with the following:

Now, let's step back and put this all in context--the context offered by Mr. Duelfer's report. The news there isn't that there appear to have been no large stockpiles of WMD in Iraq at the time of the March 2003 invasion. That's been clear for more than a year. Rather, the news is that we now know straight from Saddam himself, his scientists, and his fellow high-level detainees that Saddam intended to restart his weapons program the second U.N. sanctions were lifted. And we now know that he would never have unambiguously come clean on his WMD programs because he wanted his enemies (especially the U.S. and Iran) to believe he had them.

In other words, had the weapons inspections been allowed to continue, as Mr. Kerry says he wanted, a U.S. President would have eventually faced the same uncertainties and the same agonizing choice that Mr. Bush did when he decided to commit the U.S. to war. Remember, too, that the final round of inspections was won only with a build-up of U.S. troops in the Gulf, and that a decision to accept as satisfactory the desultory cooperation that Saddam gave these inspectors would have meant overwhelming international pressure for immediate lifting of all sanctions.

There were reasonable arguments against having gone into Iraq. But in light of this latest evidence, the arguments Mr. Kerry and his team have been making--that more inspections might have yielded something, and that the real coalition of the bribed at the Security Council might ever have supported force--don't pass the laugh test, never mind the global one.

With the media's focus on the Iraqi theater in the Global War on Terror, the success in Afghanistan has been mostly forgotten. Charles Krauthammer reminds us of this act in the GWoT; the one that destroyed the training camps in this terrorist safe haven, drove the Taliban from power, and placed Afghanistan on the path to democracy.

President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war.

It's a shame that John Kerry doesn't remember that he supported the successful strategy in Afghanistan. If Senator Kerry could bring himself to admit that he agreed with the Bush Administration's correct approach, he might be able to salvage a few micrograms of credibility. The senator would probably say that he supported it before he didn't support it. That's the best we can hope for. Krauthammer concludes with these paragraphs:

"Outsourcing" is a demagogue's way of saying "using allies." (Isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource" the problem to the "allies" and the United Nations?) And in Afghanistan it meant the very best allies: locals who had a far better chance of knowing which cave to storm without getting blown up. As Kerry himself said on national television at the time of Tora Bora (Dec. 14, 2001): "What we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will" -- i.e., not throwing American lives away in tunnels and caves in alien territory. "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way."

Now, as always, the retroactive military genius says he would have done it differently. Yet in the same interview, when asked about how things were going overall in Afghanistan, he said, "I think we have been smart; I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on the right track."

Once again, the senator's position has evolved, to borrow the New York Times' delicate term for Kerry's many about-faces.

This election comes down to a choice between one man's evolution and the other man's resolution. With his endlessly repeated Tora Bora charges, Kerry has made Afghanistan a major campaign issue. So be it. Whom do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire" during its second week and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything" differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now.

Hugh Hewitt sizes up John Kerry's fitness to be the Commander-in-Chief, and concludes that he doesn't like what he sees.

The Belmont Club posts a transcript of bin Laden's video appearance released yesterday, and provide an insightful analysis. Here are the well-written concluding paragraphs:

The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.

Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.

Charles Johnson at little green footballs performs a great service for the American voter by linking to "The Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004" from the Media Research Center.

The mainstream media continuing to deny their liberal bias is laughable. It's obvious, so just be honest. As this Power Line post points out, the MSM's representatives would much rather attack the bloggers who expose their bias and irresponsible journalism.

This Mark Steyn column weaves together the Global War on Terror and government health care almost seamlessly.

One thousand Americans are killed in 18 months in Iraq, and it's a quagmire. One thousand Quebecers are killed by insufficient hand-washing in their filthy, decrepit health care system, and kindly progressive Americans can't wait to bring it south of the border. If one has to die for a cause, bringing liberty to the Middle East is a nobler venture and a better bet than government health care.

The Washington Times is reporting that Russian special forces transported weapons out of Iraq prior to the Coalition invasion in March 2003. Possible destinations for the weapons include Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. The weapons believed to have been moved by the Russians include the 380 tons of missing high explosives. The investigation is ongoing according to a U.S. official.

This is the price we pay for trying to pass the "global test." Perhaps Senator Kerry will now attack President Bush for not rushing to war soon enough.

The Kerry Spot posts excerpts from President Bush's speech in PA today in which he responded to Senator Kerry campaigning on the unraveling allegations about the missing explosives. Hugh Hewitt writes about the state of the race and links to this breaking news. I doubt they were there for a monster truck rally.

Also, it was nice to read that the IAEA dealt with this concern in a timely manner.

Stephen F. Hayes takes a look at Team Kerry foreign policy adviser Susan Rice's disturbing answer to a question regarding terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi who is now operating in Iraq. Here is what Rice had to say,

Our position is that he poses a major threat now in Iraq, a threat that frankly wasn't there before the U.S. invasion. But now we have got to go after him and capture him or kill him. Before the invasion, he was in non-Saddam controlled area, very minor, and didn't pose any imminent threat to the U.S., and was not in any way cooperating with al-Qaeda.

To which Mr. Hayes responds,

She's right about two things: (1) that Zarqawi "poses a major threat now in Iraq;" and (2) "we have got to go after him and capture or kill him."

Everything else is wrong.

Mr. Hayes goes on to point out the evidence that contradicts Rice's view on Zarqawi. Here's an example cited by Mr. Hayes from a State Department report,

The presence of several hundred al-Qaida operatives fighting with the small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern corner of Iraqi Kurdistan--where the IIS operates--is well documented. Iraq has an agent in the most senior levels of Ansar al-Islam as well. In addition, small numbers of highly placed al-Qaida militants were present in Baghdad and areas of Iraq that Saddam controls. It is inconceivable these groups were in Iraq without the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime. In the past year, al-Qaida operatives in northern Iraq concocted suspect chemicals under the direction of senior al-Qaida associate Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi and tried to smuggle them into Russia, Western Europe, and the United States for terrorist operations.

Mr. Hayes then asks,

The question remains then: Why would Susan Rice say these things? Is it possible that the senior foreign policy adviser to John Kerry simply doesn't know much about Zarqawi, the leading terrorist in Iraq today? Or is it possible that she knows all of this and chooses to deny it in a crass political effort to separate the Iraq war from the broader war on terror?

Either one of those explanations is scary. Susan Rice's comments further reveal Team Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding about the enemy we face in the Global War on Terror. So, is it their position that Zarqawi was a peaceful, productive citizen prior to the invasion of Iraq? I'm just wondering because Rice claimed that he wasn't a threat, at least not until the aggressive Americans arrived and drove him to his hated of Israel and the West.

Do they think that bin Laden is the only one interested in carrying out attacks against Americans both in the United States and abroad? They just don't get it.

More information on Zarqawi can be found at GlobalSecurity.org here. Here's some advice for Susan Rice: Read it.

Arthur Chrenkoff reports on a number of positive developments in Iraq that you won't see on the nightly news.

Hugh Hewitt discusses the questionable lost explosives story from the rag that is The New York Times, and the Kerry campaign's willingness to run with it. Check out the links to several excellent posts from other bloggers contained in Mr. Hewitt's commentary. Stay tuned to Hugh Hewitt's blog, and the entire blogosphere in general, for updates (we're not likely to get them from the mainstream media).

Update at 7:30 PM EDT: The Kerry Spot has a lot of great posts about the explosives story today. They are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Yeah, I wasn't joking about there being a lot. :)

Also, Powerline has a post about the Kerry campaign running an attack ad against President Bush based on this dubious NY Times story. Unbelievable.

Update at 9:45 PM EDT: More posts at The Kerry Spot on this topic (with a little Tora Bora thrown in), including a response from VP Cheney, here and here.

Today the Kerry-New York Times alliance attacked President Bush for losing 380 tons of powerful explosives from a facility in Iraq. Well, unfortunately for Senator Kerry and his elite media supporters, The Kerry Spot quotes a report from NBC News that contradicts their latest anti-Bush effort. NBC News was embedded with the 101st Airborne when they first arrived at the facility in question during the initial weeks of the war in April 2003. The 380 tons of high explosives (HMX and RDX) now reported missing were not there at that time. Therefore, the explosives were removed before American forces even reached the facility. Perhaps Senator Kerry will now shift to attacking President Bush for not using Al Gore's time machine to travel back to the months before the invasion of Iraq in order to prevent Saddam's minions from relocating the explosives, and in doing so, "set right what once went wrong."

The United States is currently looking into the development of a nuclear bunker busting bomb for use in possible future conflicts against targets buried deep underground. Weapons of mass destruction research and storage facilities in hostile nations such as North Korea and Iran are most likely located in such places. OpinionJournal discusses the advantages of the nuclear bunker buster and Senator Kerry's misguided opposition to its development. Excerpts follow:

The U.S. may have history's most advanced military, but it's not powerful enough to reach deeply buried targets. North Korea, Iran and others understand this, which is why they have buried things they want to keep out of U.S. target range.

A source in a position to know tells us there are several hundred underground installations of serious concern in about a dozen countries, and a thousand or more that should be considered a risk. These include sites containing weapons of mass destruction. Non-nuclear bunker busters, of the sort the U.S. sold to Israel last month, can penetrate only about 15 feet of hard rock. While a nuclear explosion above ground might do the trick, it could also kill tens of thousands, or more, depending on the area and the wind currents.

A much smaller nuclear bomb detonated deep underground, where fallout could be contained, could conceivably do the job at far less loss of life.

The editorial continues,

The strategic purpose here is to give a President more options in dealing with WMD threats. Critics of these bunker-busting weapons would leave a President with the choice of either backing down from a confrontation with a rogue regime, or using an airborne nuke that would risk killing millions of civilians or a huge conventional raid that risked the lives of American soldiers. An accurate bunker buster would give U.S. decision makers a way to destroy the threat with less collateral damage and fewer casualties.

Mr. Kerry argues that even U.S. research sets a bad example for Pyongyang, Tehran and other would-be nuclear states. But that equates American motives with those of our enemies. The problem isn't the weapons themselves but who has them. We don't worry that France and Britain are nuclear powers--OK, maybe a little about the French--but we are concerned if WMD gets in the hands of a lunatic (Saddam) or an ideological regime bent on dominating part of the world (Iran). If these countries think we have bunker busters, they may be less inclined to invest the money to build weapons that they know are vulnerable to attack.

The nuclear bunker buster is a necessary addition to the U.S. arsenal during the Global War on Terror. Therefore, no one should be surprised that Senator Kerry opposes it.

Senator Kerry has repeatedly made the charge that American forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora in late 2001 because of the Bush Administration's military policy in Afghanistan. With this accusation, Senator Kerry has once again demonstrated that he does not understand the Global War on Terror or how to fight it. Additionally, these statements can be added to the long list of issues about which the senator is willing to just make up facts to achieve his political goals.

The military and the intelligence community do not know if bin Laden was at Tora Bora during the siege. If bin Laden was there, it is not known if he survived the assault. John Kerry passing off bin Laden's presence and survival at Tora Bora as facts in order to score points at the debates and on the campaign trail is dishonest and disturbing. However, if Senator Kerry does have some super-secret Osama tracking system, and knows his location, perhaps he could share it with the men and women who are searching for bin Laden.

General Tommy Franks (now retired) was the commander of CENTCOM during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Needless to say, he has a bit more credibility on military strategy and tactics than does John Kerry. The general's rebuttal to Senator Kerry's claims appeared in the New York Times, and the entire column follows.

President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.

As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

We are committed to winning this war on all fronts, and we are making impressive gains. Afghanistan has held the first free elections in its history. Iraq is led by a free government made up of its own citizens. By the end of this year, NATO and American forces will have trained 125,000 Iraqis to enforce the law, fight insurgents and secure the borders. This is in addition to the great humanitarian progress already achieved in Iraq.

Many hurdles remain, of course. But the gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work. Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not.

As General Franks points out, the best approach to the battle at Tora Bora was to use Afghans who knew the region and rugged terrain in combination with Special Forces and airpower. The alternative, deploying massive numbers of troops (perhaps a few divisions), would have ignored the history of difficulties encountered by large armies in this part of the world. General Franks knows his military history, and he understands that more troops would have simply been swallowed up by the mountainous terrain. But, of course, Senator Kerry knows better.

The fourth rail has a great post on this issue here.

James K. Glassman writes about the contrasting views that President Bush and Senator Kerry have on the fundamental role of government. Here are some key paragraphs:

Kerry believes that the United States government, through the Constitution, "affords" rights to Americans. My dictionary defines "afford," in this context as "give, grant, confer." In other words, we fortunate, benighted Americans have a country, a government that grants us rights.

That's an utterly inaccurate reading of the great documents of the founding of this nation. Our government does not grant us any rights at all. On the contrary, Americans start off with rights, and it is we who grant the government certain limited powers to protect those rights.

Mr. Glassman continues,

Bush, on Oct. 13, eloquently expressed the opposing vision: "I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives." The founders would agree.

And I agree as well.

Abigail discusses the recent campaigning by Team Kerry, including a partial list of their absurd statements and attacks from Best of the Web. Be sure to scroll down in this Best of the Web and read the comments under "Kerry Gets the Lewis A. Shattuck Vote" in order to appreciate Senator Kerry's legislative achievements. Here's the concluding paragraph:

Who the heck is Lewis A. Shattuck? We found the resolution, passed Jan. 24, 1991--just 12 days after Kerry voted to let Saddam Hussein have Kuwait--and it turns out Shattuck was just retiring as president of the Smaller Business Association of New England. Apparently Shattuck now resides in Vermont, these days a solidly Democratic state, so his vote won't help Kerry much. Meanwhile, Factcheck.org has a full list of Kerry's legislative accomplishments.

Powerline attempts to decipher one of Al Gore's ridiculous speeches (an event that has become all too common).

Ray D. of Medienkritik posts an email exchange he had with Bush-hating billionaire George Soros . Ray's original email and his response to Mr. Soros' reply are both very well-written and wonderfully researched.

Apparently, Mr. Soros' website has been having technical difficulties that selectively remove posted emails that are particularly damaging to his cause.

Powerline comments on Senator Dayton's column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune explaining why he orderd his Capitol Hill Senate office closed in D.C. The senator's entire column is posted there as well.

Arthur Chrenkoff provides a detailed summary of recent events in Afghanistan at OpinionJournal. His column is well worth your time if you wish to be informed.

Hindrocket over at Powerline works his way through several absurd comments made by former president Jimmy Carter in a recent interview. It's difficult to imagine that a former president could have these ridiculous anti-American views. And yet, there they are. Consider this comment by President Carter about what he believes would be a negative consequence of another term for President Bush:

I think we will continue to try and exert our power around the world, when we could just as well bring a peaceful resolution to differences.

And Hindrocket's response,

So we could "just as well" resolve our "differences" with Islamic terrorists peacefully? And how might that be? Should we invite Zawahiri and Zarqawi to a summit conference? How exactly do you resolve "differences" peacefully when the "difference" is that they want us dead, and we want to live? Mr. Peanut might consider asking the Israelis that question.

Didn't President Carter speak at the Democratic National Convention? Just checking.

I am pleased to link, for the first time on my blog, to a Mark Steyn column. This one, from The Australian, is about recently re-elected Aussie Prime Minister John Howard, and it is full of humor and percentages. :) Here's an excerpt pertaining to PM Howard's victory in the election:

Front-page splashes ("Angry Oz Turns On Bush Toady") were hastily shuffled to page 37 section D ("Minor Regional Figure Of No Consequence Ekes Out Victory In Election On Obscure Domestic Issues Like Interest Rates With No Wider Significance, Honest, Take Our Word For It").

And an example of Mr. Steyn attempting (with PM Howard's assistance) to quantify ally-ness:

But Howard, for a man routinely described as having no charisma, manages to hit just the right tone. The French got all the attention in the days after September 11 with that Le Monde headline – "Nous sommes tous Americains" – but even at the time I preferred Howard's take: "There's no point in a situation like this being an 80 per cent ally."

You can take that one to the bank. The "we are all Americans" stuff turned out to be not quite as straightforward as at first glance, and masked a ton of nuance, evasion, sly Yank-bashing and traditional Gallic duplicitousness as ripe as an old camembert wrapped in Dominique de Villepin's poetry. Even when they were touting that headline, the French were never more than 34 per cent allies.

I believe one can argue that Australia has been America's most reliable ally for the last one hundred years or so. PM Howard has honorably upheld that tradition and all Americans should greatly appreciate Australia's support and sacrifices in the Global War on Terror.

Check out Robert Novak's and William Safire's reactions to Team Kerry's comments about Vice President Cheney's daughter, and Elizabeth Edwards' outrageous remarks regarding Lynne Cheney. Free registration is required for the Safire column, but here are some excerpts:

The memoir about the Kerry-Edwards campaign that will be the best seller will reveal the debate rehearsal aimed at focusing national attention on the fact that Vice President Cheney has a daughter who is a lesbian.

That this twice-delivered low blow was deliberate is indisputable. The first shot was taken by John Edwards, seizing a moderator's opening to smarmily compliment the Cheneys for loving their openly gay daughter, Mary. The vice president thanked him and yielded the remaining 80 seconds of his time; obviously it was not a diversion he was willing to prolong.

Mr. Safire continues,

Emboldened, members of Kerry's debate preparation team made Mary Cheney's private life the centerpiece of their answer to the question, especially worrisome to them, about same-sex marriage. Kerry was prepped to insert her sexuality into his rehearsed answer: "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian. ..."

But in this second time around, the gratuitous insertion of Cheney's daughter into an answer slipping around a hot-button social issue revealed that it was part of a deliberate Kerry campaign strategy.

Mr. Safire addresses the comments made my Elizabeth Edwards,

After the outspoken Lynne Cheney blasted this unsought intrusion of her daughter's private life as "a cheap and tawdry trick," the Kerry campaign hustled forward John Edwards's wife to charge that such motherly outrage "indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences."

Worse than insensitive, that shot was off message, peeling the veneer off the Kerry-Edwards justification for making Mary famous: their oleaginous claim that, gee, they were only complimenting Dick Cheney for his fatherly tolerance. The crusher to that pretense came when the Kerry campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, coolly announced that the Cheney daughter was "fair game."

And his concluding paragraphs,

Apparently the American public thinks otherwise about the campaigning children of candidates. When polls showed two-to-one disapproval of the calculated Kerry-Edwards abuse of the young woman's privacy, the Democratic strategists who concocted this base-suppressing dirty trick orchestrated a defense that it was Dick Cheney who "outed" his daughter months ago. They are advising Kerry that he would look weak or, worse, slyly manipulative were he to apologize for tagging the Cheneys with the word "lesbian" before 50 million viewers.

Kerry will, I hope, assert his essential decency by apologizing with sincerity. Other Republicans hope he will let his self-inflicted wound fester. They have in mind a TV spot using an old film clip of a Boston lawyer named Welch at a Congressional hearing, saying "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Powerline provides these excerpts from an insightful post titled "The American Elections" on the Iraqi blog The Mesopotamian. The blogger Alaa comments on the presence of U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq, the effect that the U.S. elections will have on the battle against terrorists there, and just how high the stakes really are for both nations.

I don't think we'll see Alaa interviewed on CBS News any time soon.

This morning I found this excellent column by Glenn Reynolds about the Afghan and Australian elections and the mainstream media's deliberate lack of interest in them.

The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol reacts to John Kerry's and John Edward's apparent need to mention Vice President Cheney's daughter, Mary, during the debates, and the aftermath. Posts from Hugh Hewitt on this topic can be found here, here, and here. The guys at Powerline provide additional coverage and analysis here. Apparently, Senators Kerry and Edwards both thought it was necessary to mention a gay person by name in order to personalize their responses to questions about gay marriage at the debates. Do they not know another gay person? Is Mary Cheney the only gay person they know by name, or was it just a calculated tactic? I believe it was the latter and that is simply pathetic.

The various get out the vote groups always overlook a key point in their effort to get everyone to the polls on Election Day. The American voter should be an informed voter, not someone who doesn't have a clue about the issues and simply votes because he or she can. As voters, we have a responsibility to learn about the candidates, political parties, and issues before we cast a ballot. Failing to do so essentially harms the democratic process. Abigail discusses the editorial "The Other Campaign: Why should we want lazy idiots to vote?" from OpinionJournal here (the link to the actual editorial can be found in Abigail's post) . Clearly, the piece is meant to be humorous, and it is, but it also addresses the importance of being an informed participant in our republic.

The mainstream media (MSM) has done an extremely poor job of reporting on the election in Afghanistan. The reason for their lack of interest is not difficult to determine. Their problem is that the election went remarkably well, and that is viewed as a win for President Bush. You can be sure that if terrorists and Taliban remnants had been successful in disrupting the elections with bombings, rocket/mortor attacks, assasinations, and gun battles, the MSM would be talking about it non-stop. The one aspect of the election that they concentrated on was the problem with the ink at some polling places that was used to prevent double voting. Was the election perfect? Of course not. Were there problems? Absolutely. But if the standard for a successful election is no irregularities, then even America has a long way to go.

The MSM's need to filter information that they deem helpful for President Bush has swept aside a wonderful story. Michael Gonzalez writes about the beginnings of democracy in Afghanistan and the Afghan people who risked their lives to vote. He also points out that the presence of American and international troops in their country is greatly appreciated by the Afghans. One young Afghan man that was interviewed even mentioned the effect a free Afghanistan and Iraq will have on the nation of Iran, since it is sandwiched between the two developing democracies.

President Bush has rightly declared the spread of democracy and freedom to be the ultimate weapon against terrorism. Therefore, this election, in a land that was ruled by a brutal terrorist regime just three years ago, was a tremendous victory in the Global War on Terror. The President has also said that given the chance, a people's desire to be free will conquer their fear of being targeted for simply casting a ballot. In Afghanistan, men and women, young and old, were willing to die for their chance to become citizens of a free nation. America gave them this opportunity, and they seized it. I suspect that when the people of Iraq get their chance to vote, they too will stand against terror and tyranny.

I noticed this MUST READ editorial by Rich Lowry about Senator Kerry's desire to have it both ways on social issues on yesterday's Evening Update at RealClearPolitics. Essentially, Senator Kerry indicates that he can legislate his faith when it serves the liberal agenda, but his Catholism cannot influence his legislation of such issues as abortion and gay marriage. The following paragraphs provide an analysis of one of Senator Kerry's responses at the second debate.

Kerry then shifted to arguing essentially that, even if he were to consider all life sacred, he couldn't do anything about it: "I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith." This is a sophomoric relativism that ignores the fact that our most important laws have a moral underpinning. In any case, Kerry quickly contradicted it: "There's a great passage of the Bible that says, What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead. And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by faith." [emphasis added]

So, Kerry presented diametrically opposed views on the role of morality in public life within about 30 seconds. He went on to say that his environmentalism and his poverty-fighting measures were borne of his faith. In other words, his faith affects everything — including his position on whether the minimum wage should be $5.15 or $7 an hour — but not how he legislates concerning life issues, because it would be wrong to legislate his morality, although he does it all the time.

Senator Kerry contradicted himself? That's shocking, simply shocking.

Here is another editorial from OpinionJournal that specifically addresses the competing visions of health care reform offered by President Bush and Senator Kerry. The last two paragraphs provide a good summary:

A movement from employer-based to individually owned insurance, together with a national market for it, could have a revolutionary effect. Many lives would be improved if individuals no longer needed to fear moving or switching jobs for fear of losing their insurance. And an enormous drag on the efficient allocation of resources in the overall economy would be removed.

Americans are being offered a real choice of health care visions this November. We believe Mr. Kerry's leads inevitably toward the kind of low-innovation, low-quality government systems found in Europe and Canada. Mr. Bush's, meanwhile, would make health insurance more portable and flexible, while preserving a market for the kind of medical progress promised by the deciphering of the genome. We only wish this genuine clash of ideas was getting the attention it deserves.

Spread the word.

This excellent editorial from OpinionJournal points out the striking differences between President Bush and Senator Kerry on the domestic issues of health care, Social Security, and taxes. Basically, President Bush wants to reform the health care system and Social Security before they become complete disasters and lay waste* to the economy. Additionally, President Bush wants to keep everyone's taxes low. Conversely, Senator Kerry will ignore the impending collapse of government funding for both until it is upon us. At that point, huge tax increases will be necessary in order to salvage them both.

*I considered using the phrase "raze the economy in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan" here.

I'm sure this effort will go over well, given that we Americans have a long history of enjoying being told what to do by the British. It looks like the Redcoats will use their Canadian allies' access to the Great Lakes and come ashore in Ohio. Hey Abigail, the British are coming!

This cartoon posted at Powerline explores Senator Kerry's understanding (or lack thereof) of the War on Terror and its consequences.

As The Big Trunk from Powerline points out in this post, Senator Kerry's refusal to acknowledge the devastating effect the 9/11 attacks had on the economy is further proof that the senator simply does not understand the threat posed by terrorism.

Well, watching tonight's debate was exhausting. At several points, I was convinced that Senator Kerry had been speaking for 15 minutes and Bob Shieffer had fallen asleep at the wheel. Check out the wonderful analyses at Abigail Brayden and Hugh Hewitt. My concern is in line with what Hindrocket from Powerline wrote about earlier today, that the mainstream media will be able to turn a victory by President Bush in the debate into a defeat.

Tony Blankley argues that Senator Kerry's misguided and doomed approach to fighting terrorism is also the policy of the CIA. If this is true, I hope Mr. Goss can push through some serious reform.

Liberal activist judges being appointed to, and serving on, federal courts is an issue about which every American should care deeply. The mainstream media won't discuss this serious problem much since they agree that these judges should be legislating their liberal social agenda from the bench. This agenda includes support for abortion on demand, gay marriage, affirmative action, and further instilling their warped notion of separation of church and state. President Bush has been nominating judges with the more traditional view that he/she should interpret the law, not make it. Unfortunately, these well-qualified nominees continue to run into filibusters staged by Democrats in the Senate denying their confirmation vote. With the next president likely to get the opportunity to place at least two justices on the Supreme Court, this election will be crucial in determining the makeup of the Court for many years to come. President Bush should drive this issue home in tonight's debate.

It exists - deal with it. Here's a rundown of some recent examples. They speak for themselves.

William Tucker discusses the disaster that would be Neville Chamberlain's, er, General McClellan's, I mean, John Kerry's approach to the Global War on Terror. The main problem is that Senator Kerry doesn't actually believe America is at war. He wants to return to the failed policies of the 1990's, when terrorism was treated as a matter for law enforcement and the threat continued to grow exponentially. It would take several years for America to recover from one term of a Kerry administration with their approach to fighting terrorism. That is a setback America cannot risk.

Simply put, I am not a fan of Democratic Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota. His time in the U.S. Senate has proven to be a sad chapter in the history of MN's contributions to national politics. Abigail kindly posted a letter I wrote to the senator regarding his disgraceful comments about Prime Minister Allawi's visit and his lack of attendance at the PM's address to a joint session of Congress. Then there was Senator Dayton's ridiculous exchange with General Myers and Secretary Rumsfeld during a hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004 (complete transcript of the hearing). Captain's Quarters commentary on Senator Soundbite's performance at the hearing can be found here (note: I cannot vouch for the family-friendly nature of the comments at Captain's Quarters).

Hugh Hewitt linked to this bizarre article today about Senator Dayton closing his D.C. office because of terrorism threats. I also heard Brit Hume mention it during the Political Grapevine segment on Special Report this evening. Additional coverage at Captain's Quarters here.

Some have questioned the senator's stability. I can't speak to that, but I wonder if he is just completely out of his league...sort of like Luis Rivas being on a major league roster. The 2006 election will be an interesting test of whether or not Senator Dayton can be re-elected post 9/11. I think the Democrats may want to begin the search for a primary challenger.

I know this New York Times column by David Brooks is a few days old, but every voter should read it before election day. Brooks sums up the key findings of the Duelfer report, focusing on Saddam's patient plan to reconstitute his weapons programs and the tyrant's ambition to attain the status of a great and powerful Arab leader, to be revered for all time. Here are just a few of the insightful paragraphs found in this column:

Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction. These weapons had what Duelfer and his team called a "totemic" importance to him. With these weapons, Saddam had defeated the evil Persians. With these weapons he had crushed his internal opponents. With these weapons he would deter what he called the "Zionist octopus" in both Israel and America.

But in the 1990's, the world was arrayed against him to deprive him of these weapons. So Saddam, the clever one, The Struggler, undertook a tactical retreat. He would destroy the weapons while preserving his capacities to make them later. He would foil the inspectors and divide the international community. He would induce it to end the sanctions it had imposed to pen him in. Then, when the sanctions were lifted, he would reconstitute his weapons and emerge greater and mightier than before.

The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media's coverage (and comprehension) of the Duelfer report has been, well, pathetic.

Dennis Prager has a nice article about the influx of terrorists into, and their presence in, Iraq here. He points out that those who use these facts to form an argument against the invasion don't understand what they are saying.

This blog will discuss issues relevant to the current election (and future elections) with an emphasis placed on the implications for the Global War on Terror. The war is the central issue of our time, it simply trumps all others. A good economy, affordable health care, and world-class education don't matter if we're dead. Of course these other issues are important, but they need to be viewed through the lens of National Security.

President Bush understands the nature of the threat posed by terrorists and how to wage war on them. As he demonstrated once again this weekend (free registration required), John Kerry does not. I would like to ask Senator Kerry at what point in history terrorism was considered a "nuisance?"

<KerryVoice> I'm the Ranger from the North...and I'm reporting for duty! </KerryVoice>