Apparently a PhD affords one the license to lie without recourse. Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson's article in Foriegn Affairs called The Sources of American Legitamcy is a blatant attempt to rewrite history.

The lies begin with the very first sentence: "Throughout its history, the United States has made gaining international legitimacy a top priority of its foreign policy." Why even read the rest of the article when it starts with such an abvious lie. We never made international legitmacy an issue whether it was the Barbary Coast, Chapultepec, Cuba, Panama, Phillipines, Nicaragua, or even or own frontier. In the 20th century, we sought international legitmacy on only one occasion: the first Gulf War. What is obvious is that these two believe our actions in Iraq to be illegitmate. They set about concocting a straw man argument about the pillars of legitimacy, and then use it to debunk the actions in Iraq.

The United States' approval ratings have plunged, especially in Europe-the cooperation of which Washington needs for a broad array of purposes-and in the Muslim world, where the United States must win over "hearts and minds" if it is to lessen the appeal of terrorism. In both areas, confidence in the propriety and purposes of U.S. power has dropped precipitously and shows little sign of recovery.

Exactly what we need Europe for they never say. In the Muslim world, we can never hope to appease the tribal thugs with flags, or the clerical barbarists. We can however encourage freedom and democracy such as in Afghanistan, their obvious failure to acknowledge a glaring omission.

The authors cite four pillars upon which legitimacy is based: law, consensual decision making, moderation in policy, and success in preserving peace and prosperity. The source of these pillars is never mentioned, for it isn't to be found in either in Congressional or Executive policy. Nor is it to be found in any charter the US is a signatory to.

Regarding law they cite Robert Jackson, who refused to be "drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy." However, the authors completely ignore the aggressive wars of Hussein, the use of chemical weapons against both Iranians and Kurds, his long established weapons programs, and the almost international unanimity that he possessed WMD's, nor do they mention his decade plus of support for international terrorism, whether it be Palestinians in the West Bank, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, training bases at Salman Pak, refuge for the bombers of the WTC in 1993, the offer of asylum for bin Laden in 1999, nor the joint program with the Sudanese in the mid 1990's.

In addition, we had bombed Iraq in 1998, patrolled the no-fly zones since the gulf war, maintained 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce sanctions, and later the UN weapons inspections. It is much more accurate to say that the invasion and overthrow of Saddam was a fait accompli of ongoing hostilities.

Regarding consensus, they claim that "Although the collaborative system of decision-making envisioned by the UN Charter was an early victim of the Cold War, the United States continued to seek for its policies the widest possible consensus within the Western alliance and within international society more generally." They never address how to build a consensus when your supposed partners are on the take from Saddam.

Regarding moderation, the authors claim "After World War II, it seemed apparent that the United States had assumed its responsibilities as guardian of the peace with genuine reluctance. European leaders therefore worried that the United States might at some point be tempted again by the siren call of isolationism. By virtue of its geographic separateness, the United States could have considered opting out of the superpower contest, as it had previously opted out of the Treaty of Versailles, and that very sense of unwilling participation helped underpin U.S. legitimacy." And how our actions today violate this the authors never say. In fact, our foreign policy today is far more Wilsonian, which contrasts with Reagan's Teddy Roosevelt like big stick against communism.

Lastly, regarding peace and prosperity, they claim that "The widespread response within the free world was gratitude for the salvation wrought by the United States and the belief that U.S. power was both necessary and rightful-was, in short, legitimate." This is an absolute lie. The world never thought US power was legitimate. In fact, French philosopher Kajeve expressed his concern that the US would come to dominate European politics, and encouraged France to reclaim her role as European hegemon.

"The White House made clear that it intended to invade Iraq even in the teeth of Security Council opposition and repeatedly warned that the UN would pass into irrelevance unless it bowed to U.S. demands." When 3 of the 5 permanent security council members were into the oil-for-food scandal for billions of dollars, the legitimacy of the UNSC is what is in doubt.

"The United States has assumed many of the very features of the "rogue nations" against which it has rhetorically-and sometimes literally-done battle over the years. The legitimacy of U.S. power has, at a minimum, been eroded significantly, and at certain moments-for instance, in the general revulsion to reports of widespread torture in Iraq-it seems to have vanished entirely."

This statement is as absurd as is it disgusting. We liberated 50 million Arab Muslims, half of whom just had an election for the first time in history, and somehow we're a rogue nation. Statements like this belong in a film by Michael Moore. But these two go even further:

"The United States, if attacked, is obligated to report its counterattack to the Security Council, but its right of individual or collective defense is otherwise unimpaired, and with its veto power it may legally prevent any constraint on its right to respond by force. The question is not, then, whether the United States should accord a veto to the Security Council in cases of national or collective defense, but whether it should do so when the use of force would otherwise be illegal."

So, this must be the source of Kerry's global test. It is thus up to the UNSC to determine if US actions are legal. The same UN that countenances terrorism, supports tyrants and dictators, ignores genocide, and is rife with corruption is the supposed source of legitimacy.

The authors go to great lengths to prove a thesis which is a blatant lie. The US has never sought international legitimacy nor can it hope to from a corrupt UN.

Ultimately, however, the importance of legitimacy goes beyond its unquestionable utility. Certainly the leaders who earned the United States' reputation for legitimacy in the post-World War II era believed it to be a good in itself. For its own sake, and for the sake of a peaceful international order, the nation must find its way back to that conviction again.

Do the authors remember the massive anti-nuclear demonstrations in the 1980's? They even contradict themselves having previously mentioned the Vietnam War, which was internationally opposed and believed illegitimate. No President, including Bill Clinton, has ever let international opinion influence foreign policy. That we need international approval, which will never happen, is a recipe for disaster that will make us invariably weaker and more vulnerable.

For all their piety, they are obviously rewriting and reshaping history and blatantly lying. In a nutshell, they are full of crap.

The latest Time poll has it 51/46/2 Bush/Kerry/Nader, while the latest ABC/WaPo poll has it 50/46/2 Bush/Kerry/Nader. Where are all the undecideds? So, what these polls really tell us is that 99% of people have made up their minds.

I'm reminded of the line from Karate Kid where Mr. Miaggi says to Ralph Maccio's character, "Karate yes, karate no. Karate guess so, squish, like grape." Same is true of voting. I truly believe that maybe 1-2% at most of voters really are "undecided". Most simply have a varying level of support between the lesser of two evils. Unless you're living under a rock or just got up from a 20 year slumber, you have a position on issues and candidates.

Most people are too caught up in work, family, and relaxation to follow the 24 hour a day political news cycle. Or, like me, we're just burned out at the non-stop assault on our senses. But that doesn't mean most people don't have part and ideological affiliation.

For Kerry this news has to be devastating, but Bush can find no solace either. And it offers a glimpse into the future of the political landscape. Barring some unforseen October surprise, Bush will win. I predicted 53-46, and though that might be a tad high, I'm right on with Kerry's 46. Bush will lose conservative votes in decidedly blue or red states where a few conservatives will lodge a protest vote for the libertarian candidate or even Nader. Living in Blue California, I might even be tempted, except last year my head overcame my heart and I voted for Arnold instead of Tom McClintock. (Acts of contrition soon followed.)

But where are the undecideds? Neither candidate was able to draw measurable support from their oppenents base. Will their be another Reaganesque landlside victory with 57% of the vote and 49 states in the electoral college in the near future? Perhaps Bush had the chance this year but failed miserably in the first debate. Though I doubt that he could have won over many Kerry supporters even with a clear victory.

And as there are few undecideds left, we have become a more polarizad nation. From a pure conservative, less government is better standpoint, that is good. However, looking at the Blue/Red counties map from 2000, I noticed that the nation had not been as divided since 1860. The old adage that you play to your base in the primaries and run to the center in the general election might be over. By having to campaign to the middle, our politics never suffered from the wild swings experienced by the European parliamentary systems.

By taking a decidedly left-ward turn, Kerry hasn't increased his support, only solidified his supporters. Whoever takes office in January will face a determined adversary, not a political opponent. This is becasue there are no more undecideds left. And this isn't good.

Washington Post article October 18th:

President Bush has emerged from the debates holding a slender lead over Sen. John F. Kerry, and despite the Democratic nominee's strong performances, the nationally televised confrontations did not significantly change the way voters view the two candidates, according to a new Washington Post survey.

On September 29th, I wrote The Debates Won't Matter:

After months of relentless attacks from MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, all the way to Kerry himself, what has stuck has stuck, what hasn't won't. No matter what Kerry says about Bush, everyone knows it already. Even if he shirked his duty 30 years ago, what matters to people is what he's done since 9/11, for better or worse.
...
Barring some unforseen blunder, the debates won't matter. You heard it here first.

In fact, I'd have to argue that the debates did actually matter in that they kept Kerry alive. By all rights, Bush should have taken Kerry apart in the first foreign policy debate. He didn't. So, the debates mattered for Kerry in that the votes he should have lost, he was able to keep. But, historians will say the debates didn't matter, just as I predicted.

Michael Barone of US News and World Report: What the polls are telling us. Looking at the averages of the polls at RealClearPolitics.com, he writes:

Note that George W. Bush's percentages range from 45 to 52 percent while John Kerry's percentages range from 42 to 47 percent. In only one poll does Bush fall below 47 percent, which is Kerry's highest percentage.

On 8/7, I wrote in Kerry's in Big Trouble:

So, what exactly is the problem? Look at the latest polls as of 8/7/04: Time has it 48-43 Kerry, IBD/TIPP has it 45-42 Kerry, AP/IPSOS has it 48-45 Kerry, and Rasmussen has it 47-47. So, it looks good right? Kerry is up in all the polls. For one, except for Time, he is within the margin of error in all polls, which means a dead heat, but that explanation would be partisan spin.

I am hardly a political scientist, and I'm not writing a dissertation, but the conclusion should be obvious. Kerry can't get 50% of the vote, and right now, he is polling as high as he can. He cannot poll higher and he has three months until the election and cannot afford to lose any support. Talk about pressure.

And just last week, I wrote

So, it was clear two months ago that Kerry was in big trouble because he can't get 50% of the vote. I didn't even address the electoral vote dilemma he faced, since even now, he faces a serious uphill battle there.

Michael Baron writes:

It seems highly likely that Bush emerged from the debates a little bit ahead. Some Kerry backers argue that voters who are still undecided are likely to end up voting against the incumbent. But it's also possible that many of these will just not vote. And in any case, Bush is bumping up against the magic number of 50 percent. The debates helped John Kerry but evidently not enough to put him ahead.

Two days ago, I wrote:

If you look at the polls, pundits, and the press, Kerry overwhelmingly won the first debate, won the second, and drew the third. The post debate "bounce" brought the race to a virtual dead heat. But, alas, something is wrong. As I previously wrote a long time ago, Kerry can't get 50%. In my last analysis a few days ago, even democratic leanign Zogby and Rasmussen have Bush up. More importantly, the internals look bad for Kerry. Bush is favored on the war, terrorism, and even the economy, and the undecideds are favoring Bush.

Mr. Barone writes:

Today's polls, if translated into election figures, would produce something like a 51 to 47 percent Bush win. Interestingly, those are the percentages by which Karl Rove's party-building model, William McKinley, beat William Jennings Bryan in 1896.

Back in March, I predicted

I've been saying this for a while, but let me put words to paper. Or whatever the web is. The election will be Bush 53% Kerry 46%. I might not be the only one to predict this, but I haven't seen to many, so I guess I'm one of the first.

Mr. Barone writes:

I have a theory—I can't prove it; it's just a theory—that in these polarizing times there are low ceilings on both of our political parties. Both are unacceptable to near majorities of the voters. My theory is that the ceiling on the Democrats is about 51 or 52 percent and the ceiling on the Republicans is a little higher, about 53 or 54 percent.

Here, I have to disagree. As I wrote on 8/7:

A look at history will give the answer. Quick, who was the last democratic presidential candidate to get 50% of the vote? Nope, wrong. (You thought Clinton, eh?) It was Jimmy Carter, with a whopping 50.08%. Before that, the last democratic president to get 50% was Johnson at 61.05%. So, in the last 40 years, only 1 democratic presidential candidate has cracked the 50% barrier, and to use a baseball analogy, he "just cleared the fence". By the way, the last "JFK" got 49.72% to Nixon's 49.55% in 1960.

So, by his reckoning, Republicans will get at max 52-53% of the vote. Reagan, Bush pere, and the aforementioned Congressional results, got this or higher. Democrats? Not even close.

Barone finishes with this:

For Bush to be ahead after the pummeling he has taken from Old Media and from the Democratic-funded 527 organizations' $60 million-plus ad runs is a considerable achievement.

I wrote back in March:

10) After the relentless pounding that Bush has taken for months, he and Kerry are tied. Kerry should be up by 10%.

It is becoming more and more obvious. Kerry has "peaked" and he's still behind. One thing almost everyone agrees on is that this election is unlike any other. So, previous models should be of little validity, especially the ones that have undecideds breaking for the challenger. If they haven't gone for Kerry yet, why would they? And many of the polls have Bush at 51-52% such as WaPo and CNN polls.

The only reason I could see that Bush will not get the 53% I predicted is that some conservatives in obviously blue states will vote for a third party candidate which would lower Bush's overall total.

It's October 19th. Second day in a row of steady rain in Southern California. Haven't had rain like this in October in some time. Damn Global Warming.

If you look at the polls, pundits, and the press, Kerry overwhelmingly won the first debate, won the second, and drew the third. The post debate "bounce" brought the race to a virtual dead heat. But, alas, something is wrong. As I previously wrote a long time ago, Kerry can't get 50%. In my last analysis a few days ago, even democratic leanign Zogby and Rasmussen have Bush up. More importantly, the internals look bad for Kerry. Bush is favored on the war, terrorism, and even the economy, and the undecideds are favoring Bush.

So, now tell me again, who won the debates?

Let's revisit the first debate. An obviously tired from traversing Florida Bush fared poorly against the well researched and "presidential" Kerry. But, what has been the lasting result: Kerry's "global test" comment. Sorry, but when you "win" the debate, your opponent doesn't get to use one of your answers as a tag line.

In the second debate, nothing significant happened, except he solidified his support of Israel and exposed Kerry's naivete' regarding terroris.

The third debate focused on domestic policy, where Kerry was supposed to have a decided advantage. While most considered the debate a technical draw, a week and a half later, what are people still talking about? Kerry's disgusting comment about Mary Cheney.

So, three debates, three Kerry "victories". And all we remember is "global test" and Mary Cheney. Bush is back in the lead and Kerry is getting desperate. Instead of riding the crest of his victory, Kerry is campaiging in red states instead of blue, and resuscitating old worn out democratic canards and fear mongering about the draft and social security.

So tell me again, who won the debates?