Friday, October 29, 2004

"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit"

(-“The day will come when even this ordeal will be a sweet thing to remember.” -Virgil)
For good or ill the non-lawyer part of the election will be over in a few days. If you scroll down to most of the posts below you can guess that I voted for Bush via absentee ballot yesterday. Here's why:

To me, nothing is more important then the war on terror. Not the economy, the environment, flu shots, Medicare, Social Security; all that is peripheral to the war. That's because one nuclear bomb detonating in one U.S. city will undo all those things. I think the only way to avoid that near nuclear certainty is to drain the swamp, remake the middle east in some fashion. President Bush is the only one of our two choices that is credibly heading in that direction.

You can say that Bush is stupid, but Clinton was probably the smartest president ever, and he nearly destroyed his presidency for a blowjob. Smarts ain't everything.

People say Bush = Hitler. Those people should have to go into a locked room and read the book Rise and Fall of the Third Reich over and over until they realize they are wrong.

It's obvious that Bush is a Fortunate Son. What success he had in life is due to his parents. I'd say that is true for most successful people. Making the jump from poverty to success is difficult unless you can get into the right university, know the right people, etc. That's reality, deal with it. The only difference between Bush, Gore and Kerry is that Bush has more successfully leveraged his nepotism. Again, that's life.

You might think that war is always bad, violence never solved anything. You are free to believe that as long as someone else in this country doesn't agree with you. Pacifism is beautiful as long as you are willing to face the choice of converting to Islam or death, along with your family and everyone you know.

This isn't the first time the west has faced Radical Islam. If you read almost any account of the crusades, most of the battles ended with blood soaked crusaders falling to their knees, thanking god for victory, or the defeated crusaders being sorted into those who can be ransomed and those who are offered the choice of death or conversion to Islam. Our culture has advanced past the point where we can indescrimanantly wipe out cultures or enforce conversion to christianity. We are no longer willing to be blood soaked crusaders, but our enemies are perfectly willing to sort us into those who convert or the infidel dead.

For this local moment in time we need someone like George Bush to lead us. He isn't the best possible choice, but he does get the idea that we are at war, there is a group of people who still dream of a caliphate ruling over the whole world, and they won't stop until they are successful or dead.

Who is Jane Galt?

Jane Galt over at asymetrical information has endorsed Bush. The writer is an economist, and they give a complete rundown on all the issues as a head to head competition. Here's the climax, go read the rest:
'Then there's the question of what message electing Kerry would send. Does it make the world love us, because we got rid of the president they hate, or does it make them despise us, because we've just held a referendum on the Iraq war, and Bush lost?

Ultimately, I've decided to take the advice of a friend's grandmother, who told me, on her wedding day, that I should never, ever marry a man thinking he'd change. "If you can't live with him exactly the way he is," she told me, "then don't marry him, because he'll say he's going to change, and he might even try to change, but it's one in a million that he actually will."

Kerry's record for the first fifteen years in the senate, before he knew what he needed to say in order to get elected, is not the record of anyone I want within spitting distance of the White House war room. Combine that with his deficits on domestic policy -- Kerry's health care plan would, in my opinon, kill far more people, and cost more, than the Iraq war ever will -- and it's finally clear. For all the administration's screw -ups -- and there have been many -- I'm sticking with the devil I know. George Bush in 2004."

It's your call

Below is an excerpt from Victor Hanson column, probably the last before the election.
Read the whole thing. If we choose Kerry, our enemies will see it as their victory, that we don't have the will to fight. It doesn't matter if that is true or not, it will apear true to those who wish us ill.
"In short, the more sophisticated, the more technological, the more hyped and televised war becomes, the more pundits and strategists warn us about "fourth-generational," "asymmetrical," "irregular," and "new dimensional" conflict, the more we simply forget the unchanging requisite of the will to win that trumps all other considerations. John Kerry has no more secret a plan than George Bush — because there is no secret way to pacify Iraq other than to kill the killers, humiliate their cause through defeat, and give the credit of the victory, along with material aid and the promise of autonomous freedom, to moderate Iraqis. Victory on the battlefield — not the mysterious diplomacy of "wise men," or German and French sanction, or Arab League support — alone will allow Iraq an opportunity for humane government.

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."

Thursday, October 28, 2004

The Friction of War

Jerry Pournelle is one of my favorite Science Fiction writers who also is very well informed about both the hard and soft sciences. He recently wrote some interesting posts on his weblog that make sense:

"Actually, what I should have pointed out is that this is not the stuff of presidential debates. Presidents are not division commanders, much less the colonels of security regiments.
As to why we didn't know, it's called friction; see Clausewitz for details.
Will Kerry now personally take charge of military operations? At what level?
It is legitimate to debate whether we ought to be in that war; that is a presidential level decision.
Kerry did so for a while, realized that it was losing him votes every time he talked about it, and is now nit-picking the operational decisions. There's plenty to criticize. Much of the the operational level command in the war was dead wrong: no one expected the civilized people of Iraq to turn into Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves and steal the telephone wire and urinals from the offices, and anyone who said that might happen was told he was politically incorrect and sent off to sensitivity training. But Kerry is not making that kind of criticism either; he doesn't dare be politically incorrect.
The ammunition dump issue is the equivalent of Mary Cheney so far as relevance to being President of the United States is concerned: the very fact that it assumes any importance in a presidential debate is pretty telling, but it tells against Kerry, who hasn't revealed his secret plan, nor told us how he will get more allies by trashing the ones we have. And the fact that the ammunition dump now seems to be his best issue tells me about all there is to tell about Kerry.
Had we not invaded, Saddam would have been free to do as he would with those munitions. It may be that there was a military blunder in not securing them (or in not bombing them out of existence to begin with, although that's not so easy with bunkered munitions) but if so, it was a blunder at a level well below the President of the United States. Some colonel may need to have his head handed to him; maybe even a two-star. But when you are planning a war of conquest against a power with a large army, and you are suddenly rolling to Baghdad and everything is collapsing around you, losing track of an ammunition dump is not a major issue.
I have before said that disbanding the Iraqi Army was a stupid mistake; but I have not heard Kerry say that, and that is the level at which he ought to be criticizing the operations of the war; not over an ammunition dump.

I don't like neocons much and Bush listened to them; but Kerry doesn't sound any different from the neocons, and it may be that having got his dose, Bush is cured of Wilsonianism. God knows Kerry isn't."

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

VDH - Singing the Kerry Blues at the Crossroads

Victor David Hanson is an historian who can easily move from describing
the current war to the origins of WWII to battles that built and destroyed ancient Greece and Rome. Always worth reading, here he lays out why Kerry will be a disaster if elected and why he may still win:

"In sum, a Kerry presidency will lack either the vision or the resolve to finish the war, resulting in a defeat for the United States in Iraq — with calamitous consequences for the brave reformers there, an end to liberal momentum in the Middle East, a reversal in the conduct of Libya, Pakistan, and the Gulf, and assurance to Syria, Lebanon, and Iran that the United States is conducting not war but a criminal investigation akin to efforts against gambling or prostitution. Chamberlain-like, we will return to the complacency of the pre-9/11 days, regarding the telltale signs of the destruction to come as mere "nuisances." All the hysterical invective of John Kerry's surrogates — like George Soros, Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, and Teresa Heinz Kerry — cannot change that bleak and depressing fact"

Kerry Lied, the news media sighed...

Bubba sent me this:
"SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DENY MEETING KERRYBy Joel MowbraySPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES-----------------------------------------------------------

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred. At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council. "This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein." But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either. "
Of course all we hear about in the press right now is: "Bush failed to personally demolish the bombs left behind by Saddam" even though this story has already been discredited by the reporter that was embedded with the 101st airborne who stopped at that weapon site during the invasion and saw that all the bombs were already gone. Good thing the media is unbiased.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Singing in the Shower

I guess one advantage of starting to write a blog, and continuing to write when apparently no one is reading, is that I can say what I want. Sort of like singing in the shower when nobody is around. Of course there is that small chance that someone is listening...the guy in the apartment upstairs is thinking "if that fucker starts singing Johnny Cash again, I'll hang myself". Or the girl in 3c is thinking "is that Frank Sinatra in my apartment building?...I'm wet with excitement".

So even though I'm feverishly trying to convince people that they have to vote for Bush, to the point where I'm pissing off people at work who shouldn't be pissed off, I can still imagine with a little bit of pleasure what will happen if Kerry wins. (this is said much better by Christopher Hitchens

Kerry and the Dems will have to put up or shut up. They'll have to deal with reality in the present tense instead of using that weird verb tense that begins with "if bush hadn't stolen the election"... . Since Spanish has so many more verb tenses than english, we'll try it in spanish, "el indicativo anteganancia del ladron Bush".

Changing events from the past isn't possible in reality. We can look at the past to see what happened and what that might teach us about the future, but the past is past and is unchangeable. Any possible action starts at where we are now, like joining a game of Risk in the middle of an ongoing game. You don't get to reshuffle the cards and move the little plastic armies to where you wish them to be. Our armies are where they are, and the enemy is where he is. In Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea...some safe house in New York, wherever.

The newly elected democrats won't be able to say: "Bushstoletheelectionpipelineafganistan bloodforoilhaliburtonbushliedpeoplediedairnationalguarddaddysaudiinfluencecarlylegroup
bushisanidiotsuperevilgeniuscontrolledbycheneycontrolledbybigoil blaaaaaaaaaaaarghhh"
(I've never actually heard anyone say blaaaaaaaaarghhh, so maybe that should be outside the quotes) Maybe when they actually have to do something instead of just name-calling and criticizing there will actually be some cold assesment of reality and what needs to be done. Maybe they'll do everything right, and then we'll sing we are the world with the French and Germans in a perfectly democratic Irag. I can hope anyway, even though I think they'll pull out of Iraq and create a malaise in the United States that makes Jimmy Carter's presidency look like the happy happy fun times of yesteryear. Who knows though.

I would like to be a fly on the wall at the transition briefing where the Bush people have to explain reality to the Kerry people. Kerry guy: "So you're saying there's a group of people out there that don't care about discussion of gay marriage, in fact their first action after the establishment of the caliphate will be to cut the heads off of every gay person. Why that's appalling."

So I think a Kerry victory might provide me with some sweet sweet moments of I told you so. Few things better than that. Too bad about New York and Washington though, I really liked those places.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Near Camry Sandwich

The wife and I drove over from Houston to Lafayette this morning on I-10. I thought the trip was going bad enough when a big-ass rock hit the windshield and put a 2" star on it in Beaumont. Just an hour later we were coming down a bridge in Lake Charles, and it was raining hard enough that I couldn't quite see the bottom of the bridge. I could see the outline of the cars in front of us, and they were swerving all over the road, right next to a tanker truck. One car hit an SUV and they both went into the left shoulder, and the tanker truck swerved onto the right shoulder.

I slammed on my brakes, and I thought; "We're good, I can stop waay before the wreck". Just then the truck behind me comes over the top of the bridge and locks up his brakes. I could hear his tires, then to emphasize the point he layed on the horn. I thought we were fucked, but I got off my brakes, since the farther down the brigde I got the less squished we'd be.

Then as we got closer to the wreck, they moved into the left shoulder enough that a lane cleared between the wreck and the truck on the right shoulder. The only thing blocking the middle of the road was what caused the wreck. Some fuckwad's lawn chairs. I gunned it and we went right over the lawn chairs and clear out of everything and down the bridge. It was just like the scene in Days of Thunder where Tom Cruise drives right through the smoke and doesn't wreck. Except my wife was with me. And we were in a crappy Camry. Oh, yeah, and I'm not Tom Cruise.

Maybe it wasn't a miracle that we didn't crash or get squished. But the second truck not hitting anything was as close to a miracle as I've seen this year.

Friday, October 15, 2004

This sums up what I think about the election:

"Fine, I'll admit it. I couldn't care less about how Bush does in the debates or if he's wrong about some issues, or a complete Bible-thumping jerk about others. Couldn't. Care. Less. What I care about is whether or not whoever is president will take the fight to the filthy pigs - I mean, the psychotic mass murdering Islamic terrorists - or will hold....summits. (Like a statesman.) Whether or not the next president will give a flying squirrel's ass how France feels about anything on this entire planet. Because you know, we shouldn't. France is wrong and has been wrong for a long, long time. They took bribes from Saddam Hussein and if you think that's untrue, you're just not paying enough attention. Or maybe you don't care. Because after all, Saddam didn't have any WMDs!!! Ah-hahahaha!!! He was just a simple dictator with simple desires that didn't involve WMDs, and we had to go and f*ck it all up! Stupid Bushitler warmonger! "
I wish I could rant like that.