Dude, Where's My Revolution?

Liberal storyteller Michael Moore canceled his appearances in Kansas City and St. Louis this week, leaving thousands of disappointed conspiracy theorists in both cities.

The funny thing about that is that the name of the tour is the "Slacker Revolution" tour, looks like the head slacker isn't getting out of bed for the revolution, dude.

Timothy Burger

Note from US Army (Tikrit, Iraq) to John Edwards re: Taxes

I got an e-mail from my friend Dave today, Dave is serving in Tikrit, Iraq right now and had a thought about the Vice-Presidential debate that I thought I should pass on.

"With all of the inaccuracies that everyoneseems to be reporting on about Cheney, i feel compelled to tell someone that might point it out to others. Edwards had a huge out right lie that those serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and other "combat areas" noticed immediately. I can'tremember exactly what was said, but it was something about how soldiers in Iraq are paying more in income tax than some tax bracket that was of the wealthier persuasion. You'd have to look up exactly who he mentioned, but its completely false. As a matter of fact, we pay more taxes than just about no one in the country, because we don't pay federal income taxes while we are in theatre at all. just thought you may want to know."

Here is Edward's quote:

"SENATOR EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy. The country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, they -- millionaires sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements, to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.
Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not. We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country, and it is a fundamental value difference between them and us."

Quote from the Wall Street Journal transcript of the Vice Presidential Debate (10/5/04)

Timothy Burger

Life and Death in Socialized Medicine

The BBC is reporting that the British government has determined that doctors will not be allowed to resuscitate Charlotte Wyatt, a baby born prematurely. This is especially striking since Charlotte's parents want to do anything they can to save her life, and went to court to try to secure thier daughter's right to live, the government disagreed.

Since the UK has a national health care system, baby Charlotte's parents have no other way to obtain necessary healthcare once the government decided she is not entitled to care.

There is a lot wrong with the way the US provides healthcare, but one thing we can count on is that a judge will never decide you have had enough, and against your wishes, or against the wish of parents. The judge decided that is his opinion Charlotte had suffered enough, and so her life should be allowed to end.

In the US parents without health insurance may go into severe debt caring for a sick child, but their child will be given the best medical care in the world, and given every chance to survive. Think about that when John Kerry talks about how he will "fix" medicine here, and think about if you want him (or an unelected judge) in charge of your medical care.

Timothy Burger

Bush-Kerry-Iraq Part II

One more article about Iraq and Kerry, then I will get to something else.

The question is: is the US on its own in Iraq, and is that a bad thing? Cheney pointed out on Tuesday night that we essentially have the same number of nations participating in Iraq as we did in the vaunted Desert Storm coalition. The issue is how you define and view alliances in respect to what is in the long run interest of the US.

George Friedman, of Stratfor, wrote the following in a piece on September 14, 2004 titled "The U.S. Election and the International System,"

“It seems to many countries that Kerry is looking at the estrangement of the United States from France and Germany as emblematic for what has happened around the world. The Italians and Pakistanis wonder what in the world Kerry is talking about.

Kerry is talking to an American audience. What he is saying is this: The alliance system that won the Cold War has been abandoned by Bush in fighting this war. It is essential to retain that alliance in this war. Now, since Britain is working with the United States, as are the majority of other European states, it is clear that he is speaking of the French and Germans, the two major allies from the Cold War that are missing. Kerry is certainly held in higher regard around the world than Bush, but he is confusing other countries by what he is saying. Other countries do not see unilateralism -- they would be delighted if the United States went ahead and did what it wanted without involving them. What they are seeing is intense and effective pressure on key countries for multilateral action. The last thing they see is unilateralism.

All of this goes back to basic foreign misunderstanding of American politics. Though both Bush and Kerry agree on the principle that the United States should never fight without allies -- that is a non-issue -- they disagree on two points. First, Bush argues that the alliance system that won the Cold War is irrelevant today; what Germany thinks on a subject doesn't matter nearly as much now as what Pakistan thinks. Kerry argues that the European relationships that won the Cold War should remain the foundations of foreign policy today. Bush's view of alliances is that they are temporary instruments designed to achieve particular ends; Kerry's view is that they ought to be permanent institutions for managing the international system.

The second issue goes to the heart of what an alliance is. Bush's view is that every alliance must be evaluated in terms of its utility for the United States and that the United States must pursue its foreign interests, even if an existing alliance resists it. Kerry appears to be arguing that since alliances should be seen as permanent institutional frameworks, accepting limitations on American freedom of action is a small price to pay for retaining critical international institutions. Bush, for example, looks at NATO in terms of its utility in this war and will not be limited by its lack of consensus. Kerry looks at NATO as a permanent and necessary institution that must survive this particular war, even if it means accommodating discordant views.”

I should mention that I came across this piece this last week as part of John Mauldin’s weekly newsletters. I am currently reading John’s new book, Bull’s Eye Investing, I’m only 25% of the way through it and it is one of the best books about investing that I have ever read, and I will be writing about it soon.

http://64.4.43.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=7f53206a0beb8604fb70eda5926ce865&lat=1096386862&hm___action=https%3a%2f%2fsecure%2estratfor%2ecom%2f2000wave%2f

Timothy Burger

Military to Kerry: "We don't need Your Help"

John Kerry has wanted to talk about one thing for the past few weeks; Iraq. Before that, John Kerry wanted to talk about one thing: Vietnam. His major charge against President Bush is that Iraq is the "wrong war at the wrong time" Kerry's biography is something like born in an Army hospital, won four purple hearts, criticized Bush for Iraq, please make me president.

Since issues involving the military are the center of Kerry's campaign, and since he claims he knows what the military needs and wants, since he is "reporting for duty" to quote his acceptance speech, you would assume the military might support him, or at least be split if Iraq is supposedly going so poorly. If you think that, you would be wrong.

According to USA Today:

"In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.)"

Wow, you only need to poll 1,000 people get to a 4% margin of error for the entire US, I haven't done the math, but the margin on this poll has got to be 1 or 2%. That looks like a ringing endorsement of Bush policy in Iraq to me. These are the people on the front lines of the war, these are the people in, going to, and coming home from Iraq, and by a 4-1 margin, they are supporting the President.

This is a crushing blow for Kerry. He has based his whole campaign on criticism of the war coming from uninformed, unqualified partisans like Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Michael Moore, men who have never been to Iraq and know little to nothing about the military or about wars. Kerry is trying to make the election a referendum on Iraq. Well, the people who know the most about Iraq have spoken, and they have rejected Kerry, the rest of us would do well to follow their lead.

P.S. Cheney crushed Edwards in the debate tonight, and the polls are already showing it. Cheney came across as the steady hand of experience and exposed Edwards as a lightweight Senator who has spent more time on the campaign trail than in the Senate, who was clearly out of his depth debating Cheney.

Timothy Burger

Bush-Kerry-Iraq Part I

Many smart people have written about the first presidential debate held last Thursday. Most has focused on who "won" the debate, and while that is important I have found nothing that approaches the clarity or precision with which the Wall Street Journal addressed the actual substance of the debate over policy in Iraq the morning before the debate.

I think the excerpts below summarize the Journal's arguments well. The view the full text you must subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. The Journal is a fantastic paper, in my mind the best newspaper in America, and probably on the globe, I strongly recommend subscribing to the Journal.

Our Kerry Iraq Guide
September 30, 2004; Page A16

Tonight's first Presidential debate will cover foreign policy, and you can be sure John Kerry will be on the attack over Iraq. Fair enough, we're all for making this election a war referendum. But as a helping hand to the Senator, we'd like to warn him to stay away from some of the lines he's been using on the stump. They could get him into trouble.

For example, we hope Mr. Kerry steers clear of his vow that, unlike President Bush, he will get the French and Germans to send forces to Iraq. This would give Mr. Bush the opening to quote Peter Struck, the German Defense Minister, who recently told Der Spiegel that "No German soldier shall enter Iraq."
Or Mr. Bush could cite Monday's article in the Financial Times: "French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected." Foreign Minister Michel Barnier added last week that France had no plans to send troops "either now or later." No debater wants to get caught contradicting his own political allies. And if he wants to appear gracious, Mr. Kerry might even congratulate Mr. Bush on last week's NATO agreement to help train Iraqi military officers.

Mr. Kerry will also want to avoid his frequent claim that the U.S. has "borne nearly 90% of the casualties" and is providing 90% of the troops. On the first point, the U.S. has suffered 800 killed in action since the Iraq war began, 1,053 including non-combat deaths. Our uniformed Iraqi allies, however, have already suffered at least 750 combat deaths. And that doesn't include the recruits who've been killed by car bombs as they've waited to enlist in the police or new Iraq army. Even using, er, liberal math, this would put U.S. killed-in-action at about 50% of the total.

As for the total number of troops, Lieutenant General David Petraeus recently wrote in the Washington Post that some 100,000 Iraqi police and soldiers have been trained and equipped, in addition to the 74,000 Iraqis who are guarding oil pipelines and the like as part of the country's new facilities protection service. With some 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and another 25,000 foreign coalition troops, that puts the U.S. share at closer to 50%, and falling fast as General Petraeus trains ever more Iraqis, who continue to volunteer by the thousands for duty.

Dick Holbrooke, or someone, might want to tell Mr. Kerry that this point is less about math than strategy. If Mr. Kerry ignores the contribution from Iraqi troops, he will be showing that he doesn't understand that training an effective Iraqi force is the only way American troops can depart and credibly claim victory. Yes, we know, Iraqis are fighting for their own country on their own soil. But does anyone imagine that in calculating troop levels in World War I, say, that we would have excluded the French because they were fighting on their soil? We doubt Mr. Kerry wants to give President Bush that huge opening.
By the way, the Senator would also be wise to break his habit of comparing the first Gulf War favorably to the current one -- and not merely because he voted against the first but for the second. In the first Gulf War he now says he likes, the alliance totaled 34 countries. In the current Iraq conflict, the alliance includes ... 30 countries.

It's true the French flew some Mirage jet missions in the earlier war, and the Syrians showed up for the cameras, but the U.S. still deployed the bulk of that Desert Storm force (500,000 troops) and took about 80% of the overall casualties. In the present world, there simply aren't many nations other than the U.S. and Britain that can field large overseas military deployments. Voters will want to know that a candidate for President understands this.

Finally, Mr. Kerry will want to be careful in asserting that the war has cost us "$200 billion," which is "nearly 90% of the bill in Iraq." It's true that $200 billion is the amount Congress has approved in supplemental war spending bills, but only $120 billion is for war-fighting in Iraq. The rest is for Afghanistan -- a war Mr. Kerry claims to like and wants to spend more on -- and economic or reconstruction aid.

Other nations in the Iraq coalition have pledged something like $13 billion. And that doesn't count the contribution that the world has made in promising to forgive upward of $80 billion in Iraqi debt. Even before the Kerry victory it covets, France has said it will write off some 50% of its Iraq debt. Add up all of those numbers (the U.S. has minimal Iraqi debt) and the U.S. share of overall Iraqi costs also looks a lot less "unilateral."

We could go on, but it's only a 90-minute debate. We want it to be a fair fight, not to mention an honest one, so we thought Mr. Kerry might appreciate our little crib sheet.


Timothy Burger