14 December 2004 @ 7:49PM >> The New York Post is reporting that Marc Rich, the billionaire financier who was awarded a “midnight pardon” in one of President Clinton’s last acts in office, is “a central figure” in the U.N. Oil-for-Food corruption scandal:

Billionaire Marc Rich has emerged as a central figure in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal and is under investigation for brokering deals in which scores of international politicians and businessmen cashed in on sweetheart oil deals with Saddam Hussein, The Post has learned.

Rich, the fugitive Swiss-based commodities trader who received a controversial pardon from President Bill Clinton in January 2001, is a primary target of criminal probes under way in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York and by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, sources said.

“We think he was a major player in this — a central figure,” a senior law-enforcement official told The Post.

[...]

Investigators say they have received information that Rich and Ben Pollner, a New York-based oil trader who heads Taurus Oil, set up a series of companies in Liechtenstein and other countries that they used to put together deals between Saddam and his international supporters in the controversial oil-voucher scheme — which the dictator designed to win international support against U.S. sanctions at the United Nations.

Under the scam, hundreds of international political and financial figures from France, Russia and other countries were awarded middleman vouchers allowing them to purchase set quantities of Iraqi oil at discount rates.

[...]

Investigators now believe Rich and Pollner brokered many of the deals by finding buyers for the oil allocated to people who were bribed by Saddam. The discount Iraqi oil would be resold to major oil companies at higher prices and Rich and Pollner would pocket percentages of the profits, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, sources said.

[...]

In January 2001, in the final hours his presidency, Clinton bypassed law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to wipe the books clean for Rich after being subjected to intense lobbying from former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Rich’s jet-setting ex-wife, Denise, who donated more than $1 million to Democratic campaigns — including Sen. Hillary Rodham’s first Senate race — along with an additional $450,000 to Clinton’s library fund.

Interesting.

22 November 2004 @ 4:38PM >> The New York Sun reports: “President Clinton’s new $165 million library here was funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen. The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and the deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1 million or more for the archive and museum that opened last week.”

Let’s see how long it takes Michael Moore to denounce President Clinton’s ties to the Saudi Royal Family.

28 October 2004 >> The choice we have on election day is between the worldview of September 10th—embodied by John Kerry—and President Bush’s September 12th worldview. More >>

14 October 2004 >> I won’t be scoring this debate on the merits of the points made by each candidate, because in both cases, their message was reflected in—and sometimes hindered by—their presentation. Because there was nothing terribly new or controversial said, people will mostly remember their visceral reactions to each candidate’s style.

How you felt about tonight’s debate probably depends on how much of it you watched. The earlier you turned it off, the more likely you are to feel that Kerry won.

Although President Bush had some good moments in the first half of the debate, his disjointed diction sometimes made him seem distracted. Kerry seemed more morbid than usual, and I’m not sure if that had to do with his appearance or his delivery; both conspired against him. But Kerry seemed confident in the first half of the debate, and there were times that it contrasted favorably with the answers where Bush fumbled verbally. Still, Kerry’s dour pessimism drips from his face as he rattles off everything wrong with the world today and how it’s all President Bush’s fault. I think that works against him. I’d score the first half of the debate a small Kerry win.

Somewhere right around the 45 minute mark, the momentum shifted. Bush seemed more comfortable. He got engaged, he got fired up, and all of a sudden there was a stark contrast with Kerry. As the debate wore on, Kerry’s dry delivery of complaint-laden answers that invariably ended with focus-grouped, committee-written soundbites just seemed phony. He didn’t sound genuine. President Bush did.

President Bush’s statements were backed by passion. Kerry seemed like he treats every moment in life with the same amount of energy as when reading a budget reconciliation memorandum. When you’re a politician who’s viewed by many to be a flip-flopping political opportunist, you damn well better be able to muster up a little passion to spackle over it. President Clinton could do it. Senator Kerry, you’re no Bill Clinton.

So, if you tuned out at the halfway point, you might say Kerry prevailed. But when President Bush came on strong, Kerry seemed to lose confidence. The longer you watched, the worse Kerry looked by comparison. Maybe if Kerry had the stage to himself, his performance would have been fine. But he sounded like a prototypical political issuing slogans and he shared the stage with a man who said what he believed and spoke from the heart. (The best example of this contrast was the last question of the night.) President Bush sounded genuine. That contrast was not helpful to Senator Kerry.

12 October 2004 >> A new video is making the rounds that gives a rather exhaustive account of President Clinton’s statements on Saddam Hussein’s WMD program and the threat posed by Iraq. Check out The Terror War: Chapter 3, especially if you’re one of the Bush Lied!!! folks.

It remains to be seen whether our intelligence was faulty, as it now appears. Then again, given September 11th, nobody should have been under the impression that our intelligence operation was perfect. The fact remains that every major intelligence service in the world—including those of France, Germany and Russia—believed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Saddam’s own military believed they had WMD.

So when you hear Clinton sounding like George W. Bush, it’s hard to take seriously the conspiracy theorists who talk of oil, Halliburton or “the president’s daddy”. Not that it was easy to take them seriously before.

12 October 2004 >> I’ve heard what was billed as “the ultimate John Kerry ad” on the radio several times. I just found out it is now available in easy-to-swallow Web form.

Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of John Kerry’s claim that he’s had “one consistent position” on Iraq.

Credit for this piece goes to Mark Simone, a local radio show host on WABC 770AM here in New York City.

9 October 2004 @ 3:22PM >> Last night, President Bush displayed the plain-spoken resolve reminiscent of the days after September 11th. He was able to forcefully defend his decision to invade Iraq, and he tied that decision to the bigger picture of the post-September 11th world. He also explained that he’s not afraid to make such decisions even though it might not win him any popularity contests in the halls of European capitols. Sometimes doing the right thing is neither popular nor easy, but leadership isn’t defined by how many people love you after you take action.

John Kerry, on the other hand, seemed a little distracted, shaken almost, perhaps by witnessing President Bush’s performance. Kerry moved around the stage like a robot with a dying battery, and he ended every statement with phony sounding slogans that reeked of politician. Every single Kerry answer seemed to be a litany of criticisms of the president followed by a list of people who agree with Kerry. By the end of the debate, I wished someone had asked Kerry if there was one thing he could name about President Bush that wasn’t a complete disaster.

For all of Kerry’s much-vaunted intellect, I can’t understand how he doesn’t see that we’re living in a different world than the Cold War. All of Kerry’s foreign policy vision is predicated on the institutions and doctrines of the past. But the way you defeat an enemy state in a decades-long standoff where mutually assured destruction brings its own form of stability is not the same way you defeat terrorists who pledge no allegiance to any particular nation and who aren’t afraid to die.

I’ve always thought that if Kerry’s reflexive opposition to everything Bush were demonstrated to the voters, they’d reject him. A presidential candidate needs to stand for something more than merely the opposite of whatever the other guy says. But last night, there seemed to be nothing to John Kerry’s message beyond what a lousy president he thinks Bush is.

Bush won because his passion came across. You may not always like it, but you always know where the guy stands. I think that’s remarkably reassuring in a dangerous, uncertain world. Kerry looked like a petty politician pre-programmed to fire off a few slogans and important-sounding names. But in the end, I think voters want more from a president than lists of things he dislikes about his opponent and names of people who support him. People want to see vision. That’s where Bush shined, and that’s were Kerry lost this debate.

5 October 2004 @ 11:33PM >> It looks like CBS News won’t release the results of its inquiry into the forged documents it recently aired until after the election. Why? According to CBS president Les Moonves, “it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn’t affect what’s going on.”

So, let’s see: CBS airs phony documents intended to damage the Bush campaign. They don’t care whether that affects the election. But, because the investigation will undoubtedly discuss collaboration between CBS News staffers and the Kerry campaign, well, that bad news can wait until after the election. It could be damaging to Kerry.

As Dan Rather used to say inexplicably: Courage!

1 October 2004 >> Well, it looks like neither candidate landed a body blow during the big debate.

Kerry came across better than I expected. He wasn’t the droning, passionless blowhard that he so often is on the campaign trail, and he didn’t come across as a member of the Angry Left. People who were already leaning towards Kerry were probably reassured by his performance, but I don’t think he sealed the deal with anyone else.

Bush had a few verbal gaffes, but to voters, he’s already a known quantity. The quality of his public speaking is already factored into the equation, so I don’t think it does him any harm. He succeeded in staying on message and reinforced the notion that he’s decisive and resolute, and he hit Kerry’s inconsistencies enough to keep people wondering about him. However, I think the president missed a few opportunities to hit a home run.

John Kerry missed a big opportunity, too. After the debate was over, I didn’t understand Kerry’s foggy position on Iraq any more than I did going in. I don’t think I’m alone.

I call it a draw, which works to Bush’s advantage because he seems to be leading. The campaign dynamic going out of this debate is little changed from that going in.

Ultimately, if I worked on the Bush campaign, I’d make hay out of the fact that despite all the explanations from Kerry, you still can’t figure out where the guy stands on Iraq. If voters can’t understand Kerry’s Iraq position on November 2nd, he’s not likely to have a happy evening.

30 September 2004 >> For years, the media’s promise to news consumers has been, “trust us. What we say is true.” But after CBS News gets caught airing a fraud, it’s easy to wonder how many times we’ve been snookered before. We may never know, but one thing is clear: when reporters say their opinions don’t shape what they report, they’re deceiving you, plain and simple. If the news media wants to regain our trust, they’re going to have to level with us. More >>

28 September 2004 >> In a recent political rally at the taxpayer-financed Colorado State University, Teresa Heinz Kerry revealed that she’s firmly entrenched in the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party, saying that her husband would never go to war “because of our greedy need for oil.”

(Her remarks included no information on the gas mileage of her private jet.)

Shortly thereafter, she hinted that America under John Kerry might well be a dictatorship: “Day One of his presidency, every child in America will have health care. Period.” Last I checked, Congress has a right to weigh in on whether the president can nationalize healthcare unilaterally. (Just ask Hillary.)

Teresa’s comments answered those who wondered whether she had yet grown tired of the taste of her own feet.

24 September 2004 @ 11:39PM >> James Taranto, who by the way serves as the editor of OpinionJournal.com, noticed a few similarities between C3PO, the haughty, British-sounding robot in Star Wars, and John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate. While re-watching the film recently, Taranto collected some choice quotes from the persnickety android, of which these are a few:

• “That malfunctioning little twerp! This is all his fault! He tricked me into going this way, but he’ll do no better.”
• “We’ll be destroyed for sure! This is madness! We’re doomed.”
• “Hey! You’re not permitted in there! You’ll be deactivated for sure! Don’t you call me a mindless philosopher, you overweight glob of grease!”
• “Secret mission? What plans? What are you talking about? I’m not getting in there! I’m going to regret this.”
• “Protocol? Why, it’s my primary function, sir. I am well versed in all the customs.”

Taranto’s column is called Best of the Web Today, ostensibly because it links to some of the best stuff on the Internet. But if you ask me, Taranto’s daily column is deserving of the title itself. It routinely consists of some of the funniest and most insightful writing on the web.

17 September 2004 @ 10:34PM >> John Kerry argues that if he were president, he’d be better at bringing allies to our side than President Bush. But when making that argument, Kerry frequently makes insulting comments about our existing allies.

This makes me wonder: if being a current ally of the United States results in derision from Candidate Kerry, how exactly would that make a President Kerry more adept at attracting allies?

The same sort of logical consistency is apparent here:

• In 1991, President George H. W. Bush calls for war against Saddam Hussein. He creates a coalition and gets congressional approval. The U.N. tells Saddam Hussein to comply with its Security Council resolutions or else. He does not comply, and the United States leads the way in supplying the “or else”. In 2004, John Kerry cites that war as a model to be followed. But in 1991, John Kerry voted against the war.
• In 2003, President George W. Bush calls for war against Saddam Hussein. He creates a coalition and gets congressional approval. The U.N. tells Saddam Hussein to comply with its Security Council resolutions or else. He does not comply, and the United States leads the way in supplying the “or else”. In 2004, John Kerry calls it “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Yet for some reason, when it came up for a vote, John Kerry voted for the war.

Maybe we shouldn’t think about complicated stuff like this. You see, John Kerry is smart enough to understand these intricate issues. That’s why he should be president and not any of us. If we fail to grasp John Kerry’s positions, it is only because we are insufficiently intellectual and wholly incapable of comprehending the complexity of Kerry’s thinking. That’s basically the argument Teresa Heinz Kerry made when she said “only an idiot” would disagree with her husband on health care.

Listen to John Kerry on a day-to-day basis. Do you hear much of anything other than criticism? We know all about what John Kerry is against—it seems to be whatever President Bush is for—but do we really know much of anything about any of Kerry’s plans?

So, what would Kerry do in the White House? Without an opposing candidate to calibrate himself against, how would Kerry determine what he believes? What are his default positions? Well, he shares a state (and staff) with Ted Kennedy, and his Senate votes reflect that. Perhaps that’s why Kerry talks more about four months in Vietnam than two decades in the U.S. Senate.

Want an idea what four years of a Kerry presidency would be like? Just look to his campaign today. The Kerrys apparently believe that people who disagree with them are idiots. (In all fairness, only Teresa actually said that, but watching John Kerry all these months, I’m not convinced he disagrees.)

And if we voters are idiots, it relieves John Kerry of the burden of articulating his plans, if any. We simply wouldn’t get the nuance. But if we can’t decipher Kerry’s plans, neither can al Qaeda. Therein may lie the true strategic brilliance of John Kerry: after four years of Kerry in the White House, Osama bin Laden will be so damn confused, he just might forget who his enemy is.

16 September 2004 >> When a speech about hurricane safety veered off course, Teresa Heinz Kerry reminded us why she’s been kept under wraps recently by her husband’s campaign:

Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids.

In unrelated news, Michael Jackson announced his endorsement of John Kerry for president.

10 September 2004 >> Didn’t he just switch to being pro-war a month ago? Even knowing that no WMDs would be found? Sounds like Pendulum Boy is starting to swing in the other direction again.

4 September 2004 >> I thought President Bush’s speech was a home run.

He articulated a clear foreign policy vision: the key to being safe from terrorists is to spread freedom to the parts of the world whose conditions create terrorists. The theory is based on the view that repressive societies breed terrorists—not America—which is precisely why it’s such an anathema to the left.

Perhaps that’s why leftists—the nominal defenders of liberty—are aghast at our freeing two countries: if President Bush is right, and Middle Eastern repression is responsible for creating terrorists, then his plan might work. And if freedom in the Middle East stems the outward flow of terrorists from the region, then it is proof that America isn’t at fault for “creating” those terrorists.

Since the sum total of leftist theory seems to be that all world problems are created by America, history proving President Bush right would be just as damaging to the left as President Reagan’s victories were. Of course, during the time that Reagan tried to implement his policies, many more people were skeptical of him than today, which is why the left seethed at the recent tributes paid to President Reagan.

When it comes to foreign policy, I think President Bush is as big and as bold a thinker, and that his optimism will be borne out over the long haul.

If that’s the case, then President Bush may some day have a sendoff as grand as Reagan’s.

One underreported aspect of the speech was the sheer emotion of it. Even the video right before President Bush’s speech was moving, but there were times when you could see tears forming in the eyes of the delegates. President Bush looked a little misty at one point, too.

Aside from the foreign policy vision he outlined, I think the real power of the speech was its emotional aspect. That’s why I think viewers connected with it—and with President Bush. And if that’s one of the major reasons why the speech worked, it’s interesting that nobody seems to be reporting that angle.

After this week, I was left with a pretty strong sense that President Bush will win, and I don’t think it will be close. Then again, one of the prime purposes of predictions seems to be to make a fool of the person making them.

2 September 2004 >> The problem with John Kerry isn’t so much that he changed his mind about such a defining moment in his life, it’s that he has no explanation for why he changed his mind. When a man undergoes a major personal transformation—such as President Bush’s decision to quit drinking—there’s usually a very telling biographical episode that gives us some insight into the man’s character. But in the case of John Kerry, there is no explanation. We’re just supposed to accept at face value that, one day, Kerry throws his medals away and the next he brandishes them as evidence of his heroism. One day he accuses his fellow soldiers of mass atrocities in Vietnam, the next day he stands on stage with a handful of them as evidence of his strength.

So, who is John Kerry? With just over sixty days to the election, we still don’t know.

Last night, Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia, broke away from his party to speak at the Republican Convention. Miller’s speech sought to end the mystery of John Kerry by reciting more from Senator Kerry’s voting record than Kerry himself cited at his own convention. More >>

26 August 2004 @ 4:03PM >> If anyone wonders whether the traditional media plays political favorites, the coverage of Campaign 2004 should remove all doubt.

The press that hammered President Bush for weeks over the “AWOL” accusations pushed by Michael Moore and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe was silent for weeks when over 250 veterans kicked off the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign.

John Kerry hasn’t been pressed for answers the way President Bush was earlier this year. The traditional media was even quiet after Kerry finally admitted he never was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968 despite over 30 years of claiming otherwise.

When the media finally did start reporting the story, it was only to investigate links between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat vets. (I don’t recall any links being investigated between, say, Michael Moore and the Democratic Party.)

Yet, despite the bias of the traditional media, the story is still being heard.

Tony Blankley thinks this may be a turning point. “Mark the calendar. August 2004 is the first time that the major mainline media [...] ignored a news story that nonetheless became known by two-thirds of the country within two weeks of it being mentioned by the ‘marginal’ press.”

He’s right, and it raises an interesting question: are people waking up to media bias because they have so many other information sources now, or are they seeking other sources because of the media bias? It may be a little of both, but either way, the evidence is incontrovertible: the monopoly of the mainstream press is crumbling. The favoritism they’re showing in this campaign will only hasten the collapse.

25 August 2004 @ 7:34PM >> It really is amazing that John Kerry burst onto the political scene by disavowing his service in Vietnam and is now trying to become president by hyping it. Decades ago, he testified in front of the U.S. Senate and said he committed war crimes. Today, he snaps a salute, reports “ready for duty” and claims to be a war hero.

So which is it? Is he a war hero or a war criminal?

If you want to make up your own mind, I suggest reading John Kerry’s 1971 book, The New Soldier.

That book is remarkably hard to come by, but you can now read it online for free.

The front cover is particularly telling: a bunch of scruffy hippies flying the American flag upside down. Yes, these are supposedly our new soldiers. (Apparently, folks in 1971 weren’t very good at predicting the future.) That image alone, upon which the the text “by John Kerry” is printed, certainly isn’t helpful to Kerry’s “forget what I said before...now I’m a war hero” political packaging. And that may be precisely why you’ll hear nothing about that book in the old media.

But you can check it out for yourself. Even if you don’t have the time to read it, at least check out the pictures. They show images that I’m sure today’s John Kerry would just assume forget.

12 August 2004 @ 5:19PM >> If you don’t read Mark Steyn on a regular basis, you are missing one of the wittiest writers around. Steyn’s latest gem discusses the bizarre contradictions in John Kerry’s biography:

[W]ith Kerry [...] the official narrative makes no sense. He’s publicly opposed to the Vietnam War. But he volunteers for it. Then he comes back disgusted with his experience in war, publicly hurls his medals away (or someone else’s: that story keeps changing), denounces his fellow veterans as war criminals, torturers and rapists, and claims that he personally committed atrocities.

But then he decides to run for president and suddenly Jane Fonda morphs into John Wayne and all those war criminals are war heroes he wants at every rally and he’s got his medals back and his disgust at his wartime experience has mysteriously turned into pride in his wartime experience to the exclusion of all else.

Of course, as an unsophisticated conservative, maybe I just can’t comprehend the nuance of John Kerry. After all, I was unaware that the definition of nuance recently morphed into all over the map, which is precisely where John Kerry is—assuming the map isn’t one of Cambodia.

Kerry should be grateful that he was born when he was. In times past, people were institutionalized for demonstrating that much nuance.

6 August 2004 @ 5:01PM >> Slate has an interesting piece on President Bush’s performance on the campaign trail.

At first, when I saw that it was titled “The Right Rev. George W. Bush,” and subtitled “Among the worshippers at the president’s traveling revival show,” I expected the worst. Even though I am not a follower of an organized religion, there is something very condescending about how the self-appointed coastal elites look down their noses at regular churchgoers or anyone who professes religious faith. Tolerance and understanding are things that these elites demand of others, but they never seem capable of dispensing it themselves unless it’s for one of their favored groups.

Given the title of the article above, I expected more of the same. I was pleasantly surprised.

5 August 2004 @ 2:23PM >> If I were John Kerry—I am not, as you may have noticed—I would be a little worried about this ad.

Comprised of interview clips from a number of Swift Boat servicemen, it paints a very different picture of Kerry’s Vietnam service than what we’ve been hearing so far.

Of course, Kerry’s actions from three decades ago may not seem relevant now, but it was Kerry who decided to make his service in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign. (That decision itself is interesting, considering Kerry spent many years after his four-month stint in Vietnam repudiating his own actions there.) If Kerry is going to cite his service as a reason to vote for him, then it is legitimate to question that service and Kerry’s later denunciations of it.

2 August 2004 >> Although the animosity towards George W. Bush was apparent throughout the Democratic National Convention, it did not turn into a rally to rival the Paul Wellstone memorial. At the same time, Kerry made no effort to shake his finger at the more extreme among his supporters for routinely comparing our president to Adolf Hitler.

Perhaps this is emblematic of the convention as a whole. It was well scripted and strictly disciplined, but it also seemed to be castrated. Not much noteworthy happened at all, except for the news that racial demagogue Al Sharpton is now considered mainstream by the Democrats, and that Barack Obama is considered a rising star whose speech earned high marks from the chattering classes on both sides of the aisle.

It is also interesting to note that John Kerry spoke extensively about his four months in Vietnam, but said almost nothing about anything he’s done since—such as his two decades in the U.S. Senate. Teresa Heinz Kerry was given a prime-time speaking role, the first time such an honor has ever been bestowed on a candidate’s wife at a national party convention. Saying, “This is such a powerful moment for me,” Teresa talked about herself more than her husband or his plans.

While the convention had plenty of put-on patriotism and much military imagery, there wasn’t much substance to be found. What are Kerry’s plans, for example, to handle the epic battle of our time: the war against radical Islam? Other than trying to be friendlier with Europe and the U.N., I really couldn’t figure what Kerry has in mind. Perhaps that’s why polls show little or none of the customary post-convention “bounce”. One poll even suggests that President Bush gained ground during the Democratic Convention.

The convention and Kerry’s speech in particular didn’t get much praise from friend or foe:

• Lawrence Kaplan, The New Republic:
  

  No one who watched his acceptance speech last night could have missed the fact that, yes, John Kerry served heroically in Vietnam. Easier to miss was that, as a guide to what sort of approach to national security Kerry will enshrine in official policy—presumably the whole point of the exercise—last night’s martial imagery and rhetoric told us nothing at all. Or, rather, worse than nothing.

• Editorial, The New York Times:
  

  Biographies that make his few months in service overseas sound longer than his 19 years in the Senate will never be convincing.

• Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe:
  

  Perhaps the public will let him off the hook, but the fact remains that Kerry essentially blew an opportunity he may not get again until the debates with Bush this fall. He and his advisers can and will argue that the cold facts of economic and foreign policy life will dominate political opinion in the weeks ahead; nevertheless, a golden opportunity slipped away.

• Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal:
  

  His main vow was that ‘I will bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.’ This would have ruled out Kosovo, Bosnia and Haiti—three military actions the Senator endorsed. Not to mention World War I and Korea. This is a repudiation of pre-emption, but worse it sounds like a return to the pre-9/11 policy of waiting until terrorists hit us, rather than taking the war to the terrorists on their turf. This is a debate Mr. Bush should also want to have.

• David Brooks, The New York Times:
  

  What an incoherent disaster. When you actually read for content, you see that [Kerry’s] speech skirts almost every tough issue and comes out on both sides of every major concern. The Iraq section is shamefully evasive. He can’t even bring himself to use the word ‘democratic’ or to contemplate any future for Iraq, democratic or otherwise. He can’t bring himself to say whether the war was a mistake or to lay out even the most meager plan for moving forward. For every gesture in the direction of greater defense spending, there are opposing hints about reducing our commitments and bringing the troops home.

• Mark Steyn, London Telegraph:
  

  It was interesting to see Ben Affleck emerge as the Hollywood mascot of the Democratic Convention. The week reminded me of Ben’s movie Pearl Harbor: wall-to-wall evocative military imagery, a cast of thousands, superb production values, but a huge gaping hole where the star performance was supposed to be.

• Editorial, New York Post:
  

  He thanked those of the ‘greatest generation for making America strong, for winning World War II, for winning the Cold War and for the great gift of service which brought America 50 years of peace and prosperity.’

  Hollow words, given that during Kerry’s years in the Senate he voted against most of the weapons systems that kept the Soviet Union at bay — and ultimately made the Cold War victory possible.

• Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle:
  

  ...this convention is packed with politicians who are boasting about the tremendous party unity they see everywhere. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said that the party is more united than she has seen it in 40 years. Three in 4 Democrats disagree with the nominee on the biggest issue out there — and that’s unity?

• David Broder, The Washington Post:
  

  Students of political rhetoric generally agree on the elements that make for a successful convention acceptance speech. Over the years, the best of them have had some or all of these ingredients: a fresh and powerful personal narrative, strong ideas, memorable phrases, and a rhythm that builds to an emotional climax.

  John Kerry’s address to the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night fell short in all these respects.

• Dick Morris, New York Post:
  

  He opened up his talk with a lengthy and evocative description of his childhood and what it was like growing up in divided Berlin. He told us of the ‘goose bumps’ he remembers getting when the band struck up ‘Stars and Stripes Forever.’

  Then, after this long rendition of his childhood, he tells us at length what it was like to serve in Vietnam for the four months that he was there. So far, so good.

  But then he spent only about one minute talking about what he has done since.

  Beyond a brief allusion to his efforts for crime victims and to prosecute crimes against women as an assistant district attorney, his support for Clinton’s plan for extra cops and a balanced budget and a reference to his work with John McCain on the POW and MIA issue in Vietnam, that’s it.

27 July 2004 >> Attention Mike Dukakis: All of a sudden, that tank doesn’t look so silly.

26 July 2004 >> What Kerry needs to do is attract some of the voters who don’t equate Bush with Hitler. That’ll be hard if Kerry is seen as surrounded by extremists. Maybe Kerry recognizes this but is trying to have it both ways, as he does when he votes in favor of bills before he votes against them. But this is an issue he can’t waffle on. When voters view the Democratic Convention, they’ll either see hatred on display or they won’t. I’m sure Kerry’s team will do their best to present a sanitized convention, but today’s Democrats seem to be driven by rage and not reason. And rage is very hard to contain, which means we may be in for a rather interesting week up in Boston. More >>

9 July 2004 >> Not everyone attending a Bill Clinton book signing is necessarily a rabid Clinton supporter. I found this out when I received an e-mail from Ed Dvir, one of the folks I interviewed during Clinton’s recent book signing in lower Manhattan.

Ed, the gentleman in the brown hat who speaks of skipping to the juicy parts of Clinton’s autobiography “like a romance novel”, is not a fan of Clinton. He was actually there to get a signature and sell the autographed book on Ebay, which he did to the tune of $620. Not bad!

Although the video itself did not characterize the people standing in line as supporters of Bill, the old introductory text to the video did. Understandably, Ed objected to being lumped in with the Clinton worshippers, so I’ve changed the text describing the video.

My apologies to you, Ed. I can only imagine the severe stain on one’s reputation by being erroneously labeled a fan of Clinton!

30 June 2004 @ 5:11PM >> I owe a bit of thanks to Hillary Clinton for summing up liberalism in a single sentence:

We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

For years, I’ve tried (and failed) to come up with a description of liberal economic policy that’s as concise and accurate as the statement above. Thanks, Hillary, for doing my work for me.

29 June 2004 >> Bill Clinton’s latest attempt to define his legacy is a 957-page book called My Life. Though panned by the New York Times as “sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull,” thousands of people still stood on line for eight hours or more to have the former president sign their copies. As the line snaked around the corner of Broadway and Wall Street in lower Manhattan, I asked the autograph-seekers for their thoughts on Bill, his book, and his legacy. Video >>

26 June 2004 >> Could it be that conservatives are finally trying to assert themselves in the film business? The Hollywood Reporter thinks so:

Just as his “Fahrenheit 9/11” opens nationwide, several filmmakers are readying documentaries aimed at debunking Michael Moore, and a new film festival is being planned that will feature such works as well as other movies well to the right of Moore’s films.

Scheduled Sept. 9-11 in Dallas, the American Film Renaissance, as the festival will be known, has just been announced by co-founder Jim Hubbard, who said it is bankrolled primarily by some “big-time conservative donors.”

In the article, Hubbard says that boycott movements—such as those that would try to prevent people from seeing Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11—”are for the weak.”

I agree. The way to win an argument isn’t to stop your opponent from being heard, it’s by formulating a better argument and articulating it. Filmmakers such as Michael Wilson have been trying to do just that. Although I think the title of his film (Michael Moore Hates America) is a poor choice, the trailer for the film looks interesting and makes me want to see more.

Jim Hubbard adds:

“We want everyone to see Michael Moore’s film,” he said. “We also want everyone to see ‘Michael Moore Hates America.’ Conservatives complain about institutional bias in Hollywood. They need to stop whining and get out there and produce.”

Absolutely. I’ve been saying that for a while, and have been doing my small part to contribute. It’s heartening to see that folks like Hubbard are out there doing the same thing. I wish him the best of luck.

20 June 2004 @ 4:59PM >> First, his autobiography gets panned by The New York Times:

As his celebrated 1993 speech in Memphis to the Church of God in Christ demonstrated, former President Bill Clinton is capable of soaring eloquence and visionary thinking. But as those who heard his deadening speech nominating Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta well know, he is also capable of numbing, self-conscious garrulity.

Unfortunately for the reader, Mr. Clinton’s much awaited new autobiography “My Life” more closely resembles the Atlanta speech, which was so long-winded and tedious that the crowd cheered when he finally reached the words “In closing...”

The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull—the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.

Yikes. One would certainly expect a New York Times reviewer to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, especially one who finds much to praise about Clinton and his presidency—so maybe the book really is this bad. (Of course, that may depend on the precise meaning of “is.”)

It gets worse for poor Bubba. Apparently, he lost his cool during a yet-to-be-aired BBC interview:

The former American president, famed for his amiable disposition, becomes visibly angry and rattled, particularly when Dimbleby asks him whether his publicly declared contrition over the [Monica Lewinsky] affair is genuine.

“As outbursts go, it is not just some flash that is over in an instant. It is something substantial and sustained,” said one BBC executive who viewed the interview footage. “It is memorable television which will give the public a different insight into the President’s character.”