What Would Al (have) Done?

That is a question that nobody has asked, so I will. What would Al Gore have done had he been elected president? Let's go back in time to November 2000. Given the closeness of the Florida vote, and given that the difference fell well within the margin of error, it is entirely likely that Gore did win. (The same goes for Nixon in 1960. Now that would make for quite a speculative game.) In fact, this is actually the hallmark of democracy, that we'll take the results, even when within the margin of error. So, let's see what would a President Gore have done on September 12th?

Given my admiration for Joe Lieberman, I'd assume that he'd be getting the right advice. But, would he have listened? Is there anything in his history to indicate that he'd have listened to Lieberman? On that, I can't answer.

One has to ask this question, for this has been a consequential presidency. Comparing what is and what never was is purely speculative at best. However, given where we are, it is fair to ask what would Al have done. Would we be better off or worse?

Given his comments recently, one has to wonder what a Gore presidency would have done.

Would he have gone into Afghanistan?
The Clinton administration spent eight years pursuing terrorists with lawyers. Gore supported that policy, and offered no apparent change during the campaign.

Would he have pursued restarting inspections in Iraq?
After the 1998 missile attacks, the Clinton administration did not pursue the matter further. Yes, the no-fly zone was being continuously patrolled, but would we have, could we have, continued that policy ad infinitum. Two of bin Laden's reasons for his fatwa against the US were the sanctions that were killing thousands of Iraqis, and the US forces in Saudi Arabia needed to enforce them.

Would he have pressured the Pakisatnis to join us in the war on terror?
Pakistan has become a valuable asset in the war on terror. Many of the top al Qaeda operatives have been caught in Pakistan and Pakistani AQ Khan and his nuclear bazaar have been broken up.

Would he have pressured the IAEA to look at Iranian nuclear ambitions?
The IAEA and our "European alliles" have failed miserably. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, er, power, will most likely become the number one foreign policy problem within the next four years.

Would he have invaded Iraq?
Even if he had pursued inspections, would he have invaded Iraq? The Iraqi Liberation Act was passed under the Clinton administration, however, Gore made no mention of that policy during the campaign, and given his recent ramblings, I think the answer is fairly obvious. And how much longer would it have been before Saddam restarted his weapons programs? And how much longer until those weapons ended up in London, Moscow, or Manhattan?

What would his policy towards Israel have been?
Bush has received criticism for unconditional support of Israel. The Clinton administration did everything in its power to elevate Yasser Arafat to the level of statesman. How did Arafat reciprocate? By turning his back on peace and restarting the terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel has built the security wall which has almost ended the bombings and Sharon's policy of assassination has rendered Hamas ineffectual. Bush has offered almost complete support for the policy and now, according to most experts, the Intifada is over. Israel won.

What would he have done towards North Korea?
The Clinton administration sent Jimmy Carter to PyongYang. North Korea agreed to stop its nuclear program in exchange for aid. Carter's plane was taxiing down the tarmac and North Korea was already restarting its program. While Bush hasn't been stellar here, he has pushed for multilateral talks involving China, Japan, South Korea and others where North Korea had wanted bilateral talks. But his policies have made PyongYang nervous.

Would Gore have identified an "Axis of Evil"?
Clearly, there are a number of nations determined to undermine peace and promote terror, a group which should also include Syria. Would Gore have been so bold? Would he have been willing to expend international political capital?

Would Gore have promoted Middle Eastern democracy?
Would Gore have made profound change in the Middle East the solution to terrorism? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Arab states are opening up the political process and beginning to have elections. The forces of liberalization are in motion. If evidence of recent local Iraqi elections are any indication, secular candidates have been chosen over their more religious opponents. Would Gore had decided to address systemic change, or pursued a policy of stability?

What would Gore have done with the Kyoto treaty, ABM treaty, and others?
Bush did earn the enmity of many of our "allies" by discarding these. Kyoto was DOA even during the Clinton administration and Russia, China, India, and others were exempt for it, as well as large swaths of the underdeveloped world. The ABM treaty reflected reality as it represented another relic of the Cold War.

Would Gore have addressed issues like the African AIDS crisis or human trafficking?
Certainly Bush will get credit for bringing the plight of millions of the worlds suffering to light. The billions we have offered were not matched in even the slightest by those who express moral indignation at our military actions. And while the world debates the legalese of genocide, a million or more in the Darfur face extermination. Would Gore have had the courage to embarrass and shame the world for its insouciance?

---

One thing clear about the Bush presidency is that it is an historic one. He has affected profound changes in the world that will last generations. 40-50 million Muslims are electing, or will soon be electing their leaders. Women in Afghanistan are able to leave their homes and go to school. Shia and Kurd in Iraq are free from the gassing, mass graves, torture chambers, and sadistic whims of two misbegotten offspring. Terrorism's legitimacy is shrinking with the notable exception of the western liberal press corps. Nations like Libya have renounced their nuclear programs and support for terrorism. The United Nations' coddling of terrorism, support of tyrants, multi-billion dollar scandal, and inability to enforce its most basic tenets has made it an object of ridicule and scorn.

How much longer will poor Muslims, from Damascus to Kashmir, from Riyadh to Morocco, listen to the rants and fatwas that blame America and the Zionist entity? How much longer will poor Muslims support bombers from Fallujah who target innocent Iraqis whose only crime is trying to make his and his families' life better? How much longer will Muslim women choose the burkha over the ballot box? How much longer can tribal chieftain thugs keep the truth from their people? Even al Jazeera can only distort the truth so far.

Al Qaeda is waging a last ditch, albeit violent, attempt to turn the tide of history. They are fighting desperately in Fallujah and Baghdad because losing there means disaster. Iran and North Korea are being isolated and pressured. Saudi Arabia which once had ransomed its security to clerical primevalism has learned that was a Faustian deal. Pakistan, one of three countries to recognize the Taliban has joined the coalition in combating terrorism and control the spread of nuclear arms.

Bombings in Madrid exposed a decrepit Europe while an attack on a Russian school awoke the hibernating bear. Nothing is more emblematic of this "brave new world" than Russia turning to Israel, whose existence they once refused to acknowledge, for help in combating terrorism. Chechnya is Russia's Gaza and the past is just that, the past. Russia and Israel face the same enemy and share the same threat. It's a changing world. Welcome to the jungle.

The "Old" Europe, of treaties, alliances and balances of power, is in its death throes. She grasps futilely in an attempt to stop "New" Europe, of recent liberation from the hammer and sickle, from forming a trans-Atlantic power structure which simultaneously leaves the aging populations and their burgeoning welfare states to wallow in their lost US military subsidies. The battle of Teutoberg Forest having been settled in 1945, the Franco-German union now doesn't even control their own destinies. Beset with a growing Muslim underclass, France straddles appeasement and banning schoolgirls' headscarves. Germany is becoming dependent on a permanent influx of cheap labor from Turkey to fuel its underproductive workforce. Once the nexus world events, their show of strength now comes in undermining the US and her allies at the UN.

How much of this is due to George Walker Bush? On every profound change he was at the center of events, from challenging the fiefdom-like Middle East and his doctrine of pre-emption, to his recognition of new allies and his clear definition of good versus evil, the world has changed. Correction: the world was changed.

It was changed by an average college student and nondescript Texas Air National Guard pilot whose greatest accomplishments in life were defeating an unpopular governor, playing around with a major league baseball team, and well, not much else.

History came knocking and Bush answered. One has to wonder, what would Al Gore have done?

A while ago, I wrote:

Sometimes I get so frustrated I want to scream. I see the firm moral leadership President Bush has demonstrated since 9/11. Then I see the completely treasonous attacks by the leadership of the democratic (no, they don't deserve to be capitalized) party and I want to grab the President and shake some sense into him. The liberals don't want to win the war on terror, not if it helps President Bush get re-elected.

Republicans just don't get it. Liberals, and democrats in general, don't want to get along, they want to destroy the president and win at all costs. They don't want to be bi-partisan. To them, bi-partisan means both parties agreeing to liberalism. Liberals will use any tactic at their disposal. They will allow a single judge to thwart the will of the people, they will engage in the politics of personal destruction, they will exploit for political purposes any tragedy, victimize any person for political gain, and are the most hypocritical, duplicitous group of people known to man.

After reading Kerry's despicable remarks concerning President Bush's UN address, and PM Allawi's address to a joint session of congress, it should be clear. The gloves have to come off. We are at war. And the enemy will be 10 feet from the president during the debates.

Yes, question his patriotism. Ask him why, during a time of war, he would make a speech that would be ammunition for the enemy? Ask him why he did it in 1971. Ask him why he did it now. Ask him if he can answer what victory in Iraq means, and ask him why he thinks it so important. Ask him why he would make comments to demoralize the troops on the ground.

John Kerry is not only unfit for office, he is a real and present danger. Please Mr. President, take the gloves off. Tell America what you really believe. Tell us that Kerry will make America unsafe. Tell America he will coddle terrorists, beg the UN for permission to attack, will wait until the French and Germans are willing to send troops, and will be more concerned with world opinion the US safety.

Please Mr. President, take the gloves off. Tell America that we face the most vital election since probably 1864. The union is at stake. The nation is in jeopardy. Tell them that we are safer because we are fighting in Iraq. Tell them that we are fighting the terrorists on their soil, on our terms. Tell them we are killing them, so that our children can go to school and not worry whether they'll be the next Beslan.

Take the gloves off. Please tell America that as long as you are president, whatever you've done right and whatever you wrong, we are winning and that will change if Kerry is elected president. Please Mr. President, please.

Please tell America that if Kerry and his campaign ass-clowns had made those comments in 1944, it'd be called treason. Please, look the camera in the eye, and tell the world that wherever a terrorist hides, it is only a matter of time before we find them and kill them. Please tell them that their greatest fear is another four years, and that they can hope and pray all they want for a new president, but you have faith in the American people. Tell us to make the right decision, between appeasement and victory.

Take the gloves off Mr. President. We're at war. I want my daughter and two sons to grow up and ask me about the war on terror. I want to tell them how we fought, and won, the war. That will only happen if you are re-elected. Don't let this man get away with his grand deception. Take the gloves off. My children's future depend on it.

The democrats, led by Kerry, have proven what I said several months ago.

Their hate knows no bounds

The liberals hate President Bush so much that they are willing to sacrifice our national security and our war on terrorists. They are willing to lie, to support a liar, and to turn the 9/11 commission into their last ditch attempt to remove President Bush. Their hate is so intense it is all that guides them.

Iraqi PM Allawi speaks before congress and what do the democrats say?

"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips," said Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry adviser.

These people are not only reckless and dangerous, they are treasonous. Of course we saw this same behavior before. I think it was in 1971 and the location was the US Senate.

Last post I aksed if someone had been reading my blog. Then I remembered something I wrote on August 9th in In other words: Cut and Run:

At a time of war, his foreign policy amounts to cut and run from Iraq, fight wars only when we have to, restore relations with France and Germany, and return the the Clintonian era of fighting terrorism with lawyers.

Then, I remembered something Vice President Cheney said September 7th:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

Like I said, the choice in November is obvious. Painfully obvious.

I don't rememebr if I was wearing pajamas at the time I wrote, but it seems that people might have been reading my blog. In today's NY Post, Ralph Peters writes:

In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat. He certainly doesn't want to be al Qaeda's candidate, but he's made himself into their man through his irresponsibility.

On 9/10, in Serious Debate, unserious candidate I wrote:

This debate will not take place because John Kerry is so inept, so vapid, so vacuous a candidate. Bush is in effect getting a free pass. Had a staunchly pro-war Democrat been nominated, the clear national message would have been sent to the terrorists and the world. Then we could have a real debate, not about whether to fight the war, but how we're going to fight the war. That is a debate the country sorely needs.

Today, Mr. Peters wrote:

Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.

Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?

And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning?

On 3/26, I wrote in Their hate knows no bounds:

The liberals hate President Bush so much that they are willing to sacrifice our national security and our war on terrorists. They are willing to lie, to support a liar, and to turn the 9/11 commission into their last ditch attempt to remove President Bush. Their hate is so intense it is all that guides them.

Today, Mr. Peters wrote:

But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy.

Imagine the encouragement the terrorists, insurgents and global extremists draw from Kerry's declarations of defeat, from his insistence that our efforts in Iraq and in the War on Terror have failed.

On 8/9, in In other words: Cut and run I wrote:

At a time of war, his foreign policy amounts to cut and run from Iraq, fight wars only when we have to, restore relations with France and Germany, and return the the Clintonian era of fighting terrorism with lawyers.

This pacifism enervates our ability to fight and defeat the terrorists around the world and encourages our enemies to be patient and wait.

In 1943, Winston Churchill said "The price of greatness is responsibility. If the people of the United States had continued in a mediocre station, struggling with the wilderness, absorbed in their own affairs, and a factor of no consequence in the movement of the world, they might have remained forgotten and undisturbed beyond their protecting oceans: but one cannot rise to be in many ways the leading community in the civilised world without being involved in its problems, without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes."

It is impossible to consider that the US would be just any other nation. We absolutely cannot ever turn our backs on the world. This November the choice is obvious. Painfully obvious.

As things are looking more troublesome in Iraq, it is essential to look at the nearest comparison of a situation. But before, examine what the facts are in Iraq.

Most of Iraq is relatively peaceful and improving. The Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south are not the issue. They are happy to be rid of Saddam, and have even held elections in some places.

The insurgency never took hold, as al Sadr was unable to move the majority Shia populaiton against the US. Bombings in Basra and Kirkuk and other places have failed to turn the Kurds and Shia against us. There are still plenty of recruits willing to join the new Iraqi national police and national guard.

The Sunni triangle is a mess. Not finishing the job in Fallujah has become the Bastogne of the war. Much like Deitrich's 6th Army couldn't proceed until Bastrogne was cleared, which he failed to do, we can't proceed until Fallujah is cleared. Fallujah is also where the terrorists are making their final stand. In a nutshell: Fallujah delenda est.

Currently, intelligence estimtates put the number of "insurgents" at 20,000. That is a considerable number, until you compare it to the population of 25+ million. In other words, the insurgents represent less than 1/10 a percent of the population, with a large number of the "insurgents" being foreigners.

Even if you consider the Sunni population generally favorable to the anti-US forces, that still leaves the vast majority of Iraqis unwilling to support them. In addition, what gives the anti-US forces so much credibility isn't their popularity but their munitions. Saddam wasn't just buying lavish houses with his cut of the oil-for-food scandal. He bought tremendous amounts of small arms even while he was under sanctions, which just shows how well the UN works. They have an inordinate amount of bomb making supplies that can cause an inordiante amount of damage, especially in relation to their numbers.

So, where can we see a comparison of the insurgency? The South in post-Civil War US.

People forget that when Lee surrended at Appomatox, there were still large numbers of Southern forces under disparate command. In particular, Nathan Bedford Forrest, who would later become founder of the KKK had several thousand soldiers in his army. There were battles still raging, and while Lee surrendered, many others didn't, or wouldn't. Even though Lee refused to order a guerilla campaign, thus saving his historical place, many others simply refused to give up the fight.

Though there weren't the foreign fighters in the South that there are in Iraq, there are several parallels.

The Southern economy was in shambles and its infrastructure a disaster. Large numbers of Southern soldiers returned to find they had lost everything. Many Southerners viewed the Northerners as occupiers. The Southern army had been disbanded, her troops sent home.

Here is a summary of operations from the Amry's official history:

With the ending of Congressional reconstruction, the Army's direct supervision of civil affairs in the South came to an end and the number of troops on occupation duty, which already had fallen off markedly, was reduced still further. Now its mission was to preserve the new state governments by continuing its protection of the Negroes and their white allies upon whom the governments rested, policing elections, helping to apprehend criminals, and keeping the peace in conflicts between rival state officials. The Ku Klux Klan, a postwar organization that had a considerable membership by 1870-71, became an object of special concern to the Army, as it did to the Congress, because of the Klan's terroristic efforts to deliver the South from Negro-Radical Republican control. Consequently, one of the most important Army functions in this period was support of federal marshals in an effort to suppress the Klan. This became an Army responsibility despite the restoration of state militia forces under the reconstruction governments as a means of relieving some of the burden on the Regular troops, which were spread thin. Since many of these new militia forces consisted of Negroes, they were not very effective against white terrorists, who directed some of their acts against the militiamen themselves. These militia forces mainly performed general police duty and watched over elections and voting. Eventually, because of the opposition of white southerners to Negroes in uniform, the Negro militia forces were disbanded.

Does that sound at all familiar? Army putting down terroristic efforts? Regular troops spread thin? New militia not very effective?

For a good example of other difficulties in the South, James A. Hodges reviews State of Rebellion: Reconstruction in South Carolina By Richard Zuczek. What does he have to say:

The first three chapters examine the attempt by white South Carolinians to establish in 1865-1866 a South Carolina political, social, and economic order that was not much different from the South Carolina of 1860, only to be thwarted by the Radical Republicans and the establishment in 1868 of a new state government dominated by blacks, carpetbaggers, and scalawags. These chapters establish Zuczek's special point of view toward this familiar history as the book centers on the struggle for power in the electoral process by white, conservative Democrats and their use of violence, particularly through the agency of the Ku Klux Klan...

...The central issue in South Carolina, Zuczek contends, was always control. He advances the argument that conservative, white South Carolinians carried on a "People's War" and that the whole era of Reconstruction in South Carolina was a continuation of Civil War issues that had never been settled.

Now, does any of that sound familiar? Trying to re-establish the old order? New government of people not too popular? Struggle for power through thte use of violence? Carried on a "people's war"? Unresolved issues never settled?

One of the goals of Reconstruction was to create a "New South". Sound familiar?

Important to remember is that white resistance led to the eventual removal of forces in 1876 by President Hayes, and wide spread disenfrachisement and racial segregation took place in the form of the "Black codes". Lynchings, burning churches, and other acts of violence were commonplace. The Klan was a widely dispersed organization that the government had great difficulty in controlling. The local governments had little control, as they were the preceived creations of Negroes and Readical Republicans.

There is an historical precedence to the current Iraqi situaiton. We have already done this before, it is going to take a long time, and it is going to be difficult. If we cut and run as Kerry would have us do, we'll end up with a lingering problem, one that lasts for generations.

It doesn't take many people to derail a transition to an open, democratic society. In fact, time is always on their side. Just as the white resistance and conservative Democrats wore down the Northern occupation, so too will we get worn down unless we finish the job, and soon.

As the local governments had little authority during Reconstruction, we can't afford to repeat that mistake. We must make them the real instruments of power in Iraq and show them independent of US interests.

Mostly, there were some states that chose to move on, while others resisted. We treated the South as an entire body where we should have dealt with states on a one-by-one basis. So too should we deal with the Sunni traingle and Fallujah, independent from the rest of Iraq. Where those regions wish to move on, let them. Don't let a small number of people destroy the progress of most of Iraq.

Pat Buchannan hits the nail on the head with Useful idiots of Osama, but he can't help descend back into his isolationist/anti-semitic rants.

He is absolutely accurate that the intellectuals in the West who have given passes to every leftist dictator since Mao and Stalin, and are now admonishing the Bush administration to break off relations with Moscow, are aiding and abetting terrorists. Russia has just suffered a terrorist attack of near 9/11 proportions: two airlines and the Beslan massacre. Putin now understands the enemy we all face, and has decided begin fighting terror, instead of fighting the war on terror.

Where does Pat go off the deep end?

But the larger question is: Why is Bush still listening to these people? These were the propagandists and agitators for the war in Iraq that may yet cost him his presidency. Nothing they promised has been delivered. They constantly undercut relations with our European allies with their insults. They persuaded Bush to outsource Middle East policy to Sharon, to our national detriment.

Now, they are pushing Bush to distance ourselves from, if not to destabilize Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Why does Bush continue to heed men whose policies have radicalized the Middle East and converted much of the Islamic world into a giant recruiting station for Osama bin Laden?

Pat is smarter than to peddle this kind of nonsense.

Undercut our European allies? Really. It was our "ally" the French, remember de Villipien, that lied to Powell at the UN and embarassed us publicly.

Outsource Middle East policy to Sharon. Grab the Liederhosen and sauerkraut. If Pat can't see that Al Aksa, Hamas, et al, and al Qaeda aren't cut from the same cloth, than he's been in that musty CNN studio too long.

Radicalized the Middle East. I guess the notion of flying planes into buildings, blowing up Marine barracks, detonating a bomb under the World Trade center, attack a US warship, killing soldiers, hijacking planes, blowing up planes, blowing up yourself on a bus with women and children, taking our embassy, etc., etc., etc., al started after we invaded Iraq in 2003.

A giant recruiting station for UBL? Because he had such a hard time prior to the invasion.

Much like I tell my students, it isn't the lies that are most dangerous, it's the half-truths. See, Pat isn't necesarily wrong, he is just shading the truth and presenting "facts", i.e. "we're creating more terrorists", that can't be disputed.

Pat just can't hide his Jew hating. Like a cancer, it consumes him. So, why "Louis"? Louis Farrakhan makes some good arguments about black entrepreneurialship, responsibility, etc., but then blames Jews for everything. Like Pat Buchannan.

So, it seems the Kerry campaign had contact with Burkett and CBS played man in the middle. Even if the Ra^thergate scandal can be traced directly back to Kerry himself, it won't sway too many votes. He's going to get 43% of the vote if he said he's personally go to Paris and speak to the enemy. Oh wait, he already did that!!

No, what does all this really show? That he is simply to stupid to govern. A few days ago (9/10), I said "John Kerry is so inept, so vapid, so vacuous a candidate." Now I have concluded he's just too stupid as well.

Let's see:

Example 1. The country is at war. He figures he can play his "war hero" status and show he's tough on defense.

Problem. He's too stupid to realize what his fellow swift vet officers thought of "flesh wound" Kerry.

Example 2. He needed to pick a campaign manager.

Problem. He picks Bob Shrum who's 0 for the 20th century in presidential campaigns.

Example 3. He appears before the DNC and says, "Reporting for duty".

Problem. He is most famous for saying the US army was reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.

Example 4. He needs to pick a vice-presidential candidate that can add balance to the ticket as well as deliver needed electoral votes.

Problem. He picks trial-lawyer extraordinaire, pretty boy, John Edwards.

Example 5. He spends 20 years in the senate opposing virtually every weapon system in the armed forces.

Problem. He actually thinks people aren't going to examine his record, especially in a time of war.

Example 6. He feels that the best defense against the swift vets is a good offense, namely, that the president got preferential treatment in joinging the TANG.

Problem. Incumbents are judged on their record in office. Bush will be judged by the last 3 1/2 years. What Bush did 30 years is irrelevant because he never mentions his TANG service, and more improtantly, it has no bearing on his presidency.

Most people figure Bush got preferential treatment to get a TANG spot, and most people figure he wasn't going to be the best officer on the Air Force. It is amazing that Kerry would actually think that this would have any effect. Does he really think people care if Bush skipped some TANG duties in the 1970's? This just shows a level of stupidity that is overwhelming. John Kerry is just too stupid to be president.

In trying to unseat an incumbent, a challenger has to use his past and his campaign to show fitness for office. Kerry doesn't think what result his actions or words will cause and has made bad decisions throughout the campaign. On that basis alone, he has shown himself to be incapable of the office. He made Vietnam the issue, and he has to deal with it. He was too stupid to see what problems that would cause.

Is stupid too harsh a word? I don't think so. Kerry has made mistakes that anyone with just an ounce of common sense would've recognized. Maybe he's not stupid, he's just done a great many stupid things this campaign. And for that, he wants to be elected president?