Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

wow, kerry sounds like an actual grownup!

So where's the punchline about Bush's "decision-making style"?

Bush decision making style: read My Pet Goat for 7 minutes after being told the nation is under attack.

Kerry decision making style: turn the boat back and go directly at the enemy, and personally eliminate the threat at close range. (that's how he earned the silver star)

Stephan,

I thought the same thing, then realized the punch lines are the italicized ones at the begining. Compare to Schlesinger's throw-away "often makes quick judgements" with no examples or substantiation cited. Just a piece of the conventional storyline we all know, therefore skip the details, is apparently what the WSJ thought. I prefer Brad's version, makes more sense.

Wasn't it Jimmy Carter who was widely criticized for being too thourough in his leadership and decision making processes? If memory serves he was percieved as being to emersed in the details of any given policy, spent ungodly hours gathering information and weighing options. Of course Reagan came in at 10AM, asked his advisors what to do and left at 6PM with an afternoon nap thrown in. Not saying it's right, but seems the second decision making style seems to be popular among the electorate.

Sounds like a comparison between Forrest Gump and Hamlet.

Norman Rogers wrote, "Why is it that you ultra-libs NEED to believe that GWB is a moron? Does he make you feel inadequate? What is it?"

Nonsense.

I'm farther to the left than Brad, and I don't consider Bush a moron. I think he's got an above-average intelligence, coupled with an lack of intellectual curiosity and a very dangerous ideology.

Does Jake Schlesinger wear a pink shirt?

I think we should be told.

Norman, I would watch your step around here. Brad likes to block people who make valid points like yours.

"Why is it that you ultra-libs NEED to believe that GWB is a moron?"

We NEED some explanation for the Bush record. Moron is just one theory and frequently the easiest to digest, all the others involve significant levels of corruption, or unbelievable quantities of bad luck, or Manchurian plots, or fundamentalist quackery, etc

But, in this case Brad's suggestion was GWB laziness, not idiocy. Moron was your choice this time.

Norm:
"Why is it that you ultra-libs NEED to believe that GWB is a moron? Does he make you feel inadequate? What is it?"

Not considering myself as an "ultra-lib" but a "fallen" Repug.

My dictionary describes a moron as someone whose mental development is arrested at somewhere between five and twelve years old.

GWBs decisions (and therefore apparent thought processes) seem to reflect the shallow, undisciplined and emotional levels of that particular age group, therefore, "moron", in his case, is certainly appropriate.

While many may use the word "moron" in a derogatory manner, those of us know who know the meaning of the word feel it is an appropriate description.

Hey, looky!

Old Norm's back. Hi Norm! Still spouting, eh? Well, it's good to see you haven't changed. Change is bad.

Best,

D

"The only liberal insight we have to GWB's style of management comes from Bob Woodward, and he paints a very different picture of our President."

Seems like Paul O'Neill (you remember Paolo) painted several pictures of GWB's management style (although Paolo's not a lib)

When Bush insisted that there was hard proof that Iraq had WMD's, he was either a liar or a moron, take your pick. Now it could, of course, be that he's a lying moron.

"Kerry decision making style: turn the boat back and go directly at the enemy, and personally eliminate the threat at close range. (that's how he earned the silver star)"

That's how he would have gotten himself and his crew killed, if the Viet Cong he didn't see hiding where he beached his Swift Boat, had fired his grenade launcher instead of running.

Then he went to a Px and bought a movie camera, returned to the scene, beached the boat a second time--making it and his crew sitting ducks had there been any Viet Cong in the area that day--and filmed his "exploits" so everyone could see it when he ran for President some day. And that day is tonight.

I can't make up my mind who is the weirder, Teresa or Movie Star John.

Norm:
You build the straw man that libs think W. is a moron and then tear it down. Very clever. You can disagree with W. without thinking he is a moron.

You can also face every issue with a pre-determined outcome based on idealogy and not be a moron.

The question you should try to answer is whether or not Brad accurately describes W.'s decision making process. I think that he does, with a slight exaggeration added for emphisis.

As for Bush's decision making, here's a description from someone with firsthand experience:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec03/rice_10-13.html

JIM LEHRER: We forget that, that Colin Powell was the national security adviser in the Reagan administration.

RICHARD CLARKE: And he also used to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs so Colin Powell has held three of the six positions around the table at an NSC principals' meeting. So this president has chosen people who are very strong personalities. He wants them to debate and engage as Franklin Roosevelt did. Franklin Roosevelt used to get his advisers to go at it to see what that produced in terms of analysis and alternatives and options. This is very unlike the president's father, the first President Bush, who didn't like disagreement among the boys. And really you were given demerits if you were a little obstreperous in the first Bush administration. This administration is not like that at all. What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug.

The Wall Street Journal Opinions page is conservative, but their news reporting tends to have a liberal slant. The cited article comes from the News side.

As has been pointed out, the article gives some exmples of Kerry's decision-making style, but merely repeats the liberal CW about Bush's style.

Intelligent, reasonable people can still disagree. E.g., I think overthrowing Saddam was the right thing to do. The attack was justified by many good reasons, so that it was still the right decision even though stocks of WMDs haven't been found, in my opinon. But, I wouldn't claim that that those who disapprove of the war in Iraq are morons or that they don't make decisions well.

'That's how he would have gotten himself and his crew killed, if the Viet Cong he didn't see hiding where he beached his Swift Boat, had fired his grenade launcher instead of running.'

Well, not everyone can display the supreme abilities of self preservation of Geoerge Bush in running away from danger as quickly as possible, and even running away from National Guard duties.

'Then he went to a Px and bought a movie camera, returned to the scene, beached the boat a second time--making it and his crew sitting ducks had there been any Viet Cong in the area that day--and filmed his "exploits" so everyone could see it when he ran for President some day'

Even if that were all correct (which is doubtful tp say the least), actually filming an action in which you took part seems to be a notch above strutting on a carrier deck and presenting yourself as a brave warrior on the basis of your heroic service defending Texas from .. from .. er from someone anyway.

David, you doing exactly what Bush does. Vagueness and ambiguity.

"The attack was justified by many good reasons"

Something our dear Dubya would say. Of course, I do not doubt you have some reasons, but I do doubt they are "good" enough for the general public.

Patrick, of course if you keep reading the cite you provide, you get to where Richard Clarke describes an actual Bush decision:

"I do. I think the mistake was exactly that. When you do what's called a complex operation like this, you can't give it to one department. Now that wasn't Dr. Rice's fault. She didn't give it to one department; the president did. And the president made a mistake in doing that. The way we've done these operations in the past, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, we've learned how to do it. We ought to have built on that institutional experience. The way you do it is by having someone in the White House with the stick that makes the interagency work. You can't give it to one department because no one department has the capability to do it as this Defense Department has proven. It's failed miserably in the management of post war Iraq."

See, this is the problem that Bush-enablers need to confront: most of bush's decisions have been mistakes. Brad offers us a theory that fits that empirical outcome: he's ill-informed, makes snap judgements, and then never changes his mind. This theory has the advantage of fitting the known biographical information about Bush.

But actually, as these things go, i thought the article was pretty good. My complaint was the depiction of the $87B vote.

There were, of course, two approaches to the $87B: the funded approach (which Kerry favored) and the borrow the money from Chinese and Japanese central bankers approach (which Bush favored). Bush, in fact, threatened to veto the funded approach. Reducing all of that to Kerry voting against the $87B is intellectually dishonest, as i told the writer in an email (no response yet).

PS. Nice of you to armchair admiral Kerry's wartime actions, Patrick; too bad the military didn't see fit to agree with you at the time, although, of course, what do they know?

'The Wall Street Journal Opinions page is conservative, but their news reporting tends to have a liberal slant. The cited article comes from the News side. '

The Wall Street JOurnal Opinions page is not just conservative. It is a paper that (other than the occasonal Al Hunt column) is about as conservative as you can get outside of the publications of the John Birch Society. That page has been known to publish outright lies. They published articles about Bill Clinton linking him to drug smuggling, and murders in Mena. They published so many anti-Bill editorials on whitewater, that they made a book or two ou tof it. They've been known to use dishonest tactics such as highlighting on the opinion page someone sxaying "I served in John Kerry's boat. Heis unfit to be CinC", without mentioning that the man served on the boat, but never directly with Kerry. They attacked the the Heinz Foundation funding left wing groups, and refused to publish that foundation's thorough refuttal of these bogus chargers. The news page of the paper, by contrast had a detailed report on the Teresa HK and her association with the Heinz foundation and how she funds that more or less completely refuted the editorial page. The editorial page is ferociously, fanatically right wing, and doesn't hesitate to lie, misinform and the like in the best traditions of the right wing attack media. It should really be considered a right wing scandal sheet published in a respectable paper.

As to whether its regular news coverage has a liberal slant -- I disagree. They had a very critical article on Air America a month back, for instance. Also, it would be hard to explain why the owners would allow a fervently conservative opinion page, and a liberal paper. I find their news coverage to be pretty good and thats why I buyt it, although the editorial page is so biased.

'But, I wouldn't claim that that those who disapprove of the war in Iraq are morons or that they don't make decisions well. '

Ypu may not, but there are certainly people, including the WSJ editorial page that have no hesitiation about calling people who oppose the Iraq war all sorts of names. And given the mess taht pro-war Iraq has become, its obvious that Bush and Co. did not make decisions well. It should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the ME, and not seduced by Victor Davis Hanson, Wolfowitz, Perle etc. that the notion of being greated with flowers for more than a week was just a fantasy.

"Intelligent, reasonable people can still disagree. E.g., I think overthrowing Saddam was the right thing to do"

...in order to establish a democracy in the Middle East and halt Saddam's tyrannical rule over the Iraqi people, you did not add.

Even if any of that was a Bush administration rationale, which I doubt, they've undermined it to the point of failure by A) bringing it up after-the-fact, when it became impossible to sustain the original reasons; B) applying this rationale so unevenly (one decade, when the atrocities occur, Saddam's our ally, much later we take him out); and, C) demonstrating they're not serious by not committing the troops and money it will actually take to complete the job.

It's a measure of their desperation that they even use this argument as they don't really want this kind of rationale to gain widespread acceptance because that would make Carter right and their long line of ideaological fathers wrong.

Had this really been a Bush motive, sold up front, and supported with deeds the Iraq war would be a whole different deal and we'd probably have a different acceptable outcome at this point.

"Mr. Bush often makes quick judgments....Mr. Bush paints in black and white....Mr. Bush establishes broad principles and sticks to them."

Does anyone notice a disconnect between the CW about Bush's decision-making style and what his style actually is? Just on Iraq alone, the White House insists that Bush (a) didn't decide that Saddam was behind 9/11 (b) wasn't gunning for Saddam immediately after 9/11 (c) only decided to make Iraq an issue after the fighting in Afghanistan was done and the Iraqi threat needed to be reassessed (d) thought the UN could be effective in assessing the Iraqi WMD threat and (e) didn't think war was the only solution until March 2003. After the war, the inability to find WMD or substantive Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda were downplayed in favor of justifications involving Iraqi human-rights abuses and the need to transform a dysfunctional Mideast. But if the Iraq war was justified by those issues alone, would not a decisive person acting on black-and-white principles have decided to invade Iraq in late 2001, and not needed all this dicking around with WMD, coalition-building & the UN? Say what you will about Bush's intelligence, motivations or guile, but these are two incompatible stories.

“From everything I have heard, . . . “

Sounds like your knowledge of Bush’s decision-making style is based more on gossip than direct knowledge. What you say could be true, but you need to do more than simply assert it.

As for Kerry, his style sounds like Carter’s. I regard Carter as the worst president since the end of WWII because his decisions were so poor, and we are living with the pernicious effects of his decisions to this day. Carter would do things like go to bed reading the operating-maintenance manual for a jet-fighter aircraft, a level of detail inappropriate of even an assistant secretary, let alone POTUS. As the job of the president becomes ever more complex, he has to simply and delegate or many problems will get no attention at all from him.

I remember asking a decision theorist if he used decision theory in making a certain personal decision. His answer: “No that’s too important a decision leave to decision theory.” I think in the end almost everyone relies on intuition because even with data (and you never seem to have enough) inference and action require some level of intuition. For example last night the history channel had the story of the making of the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River. The chief engineer and designer had to make an engineering decision about stiffening the roadway to avoid wind flutter effects. He decided against it (using more intuition than analysis) as he thought the extreme weight of the very wide roadway was enough. He was right. You could say he was just lucky, but his string of successes in bridge design seems to indicate it was more than luck.

Oh, the Patrick Sullivan plant food factory is back in operation. Hold on, I'll get my wheelbarrow.

Dr. DeLong, I'll grant you the second half of your conclusion -- I've seen evidence that GWB will not revisit a decision no matter what happens (I think even George Will has commented on this White House's refusal to "think twice"). As for the first half -- that Bush makes quick decisions on next to no information -- I can't actually think of any decisions for which I'm sure this is the case. While Bush has made a lot of decisions I found deplorable, by and large I think that they were well thought out. In general I think it is more the case that his stated reasons and his actual reasons for making any given decision are quite different, which can make it look like the decisions were poorly informed. Of course, I haven't read Paul O'Neil's book (nor Dick Clarke's, Joe Wilson's...). Can you or somebody provide some examples of decisions which were clearly made on next to no information?

"Moron" is being kind - if GWB isn't a moron and has made these decisions fully informed - then we have a much more serious, dangerous problem than we thought.

I did get the impression that GWB makes his decisions _suddenly_, not _quickly_. In other words, he will spend some period of time thinking about a set of outcomes, perhaps polling his advisors, but then at some point he will come to a conclusion - and often this will not be a planned decision point "I will decide Tuesday" but rather a gestalt moment where he feels that he knows what to do.

This can be a valid decision-making style, although several of the critiques of GWB suggest that his _sudden_ decisions tend to reflect whatever information he encountered most recently.

The more troubling thing is that he never looks back, never makes space to look back. There is something to be said for making a decion and acting promptly on it - both the military and the B-schools emphasize that a good decision now beats a great decision later. However, GWB insists on publishing his rough draft, and never going back for revisions. And that is a problem.

"Why is it that you ultra-libs NEED to believe that GWB is a moron? Does he make you feel inadequate? What is it?"

Norman, let's take your question at face value, it's fun:

1. He's messed up America's superb economy. In 3 1/2 years, he's managed to turn budget surplus into *record breaking* deficits. Labor force participation ratios are at their lowest for decades. And inflation is on the way back, with the Fed poised to raise interest rate further. Moron!

2. He's bogged down pratically all of America's active servicemen and women in the hot and slipery sands of Irak. More than a 1000 troops have died in Irak for nothing *so far* (the rate at which they're being shot dead is *accelerating* by the week). More than 10,000 innocent Irakis have died in this war. Several multiple of that are severely injured or incapacitated. Moron!

3. He's botched the "post-war" job so well that whereas Saddam's Irak had no operational link with Al-Qaeda (these are the words of the bipartisan 9-11 commission), now it's competing with Afghanistan (that other botched war - remember? - 2 days ago MSF just packed its bags after 2 _decades_ of presence there) as a breeding ground for terrorists. Moron!

4. He has tarnished the good name of the United States of America by secretely signing on orders relaxing the US Army's standards in terms of interrogation techniques. This, even Conservative analysts conciede, will haunt the United States for decades on the international scene and in its(real) war on terrorism. Moron!

And these are "only" the 4 major objective and moral reasons to consider him W a moron. I am not even talking about his assaults on the American Constitution and America's cherished civil liberties. Etc. Etc.

The question lies with you, Norman, and Patrick. What does it take you to decide to care more about your country than for your President? Let me throw those words back at you, most sincerely: why do you care for America so little? Do you consider yourself a citizen of the United States of America before or after being a member of the Republican Party? I as a humble permanent resident seem to care an order of magnitude more about *your* country than you do. I find it bizarre to say the least. What would it take, what would need to happen to the United States for you to act against the marching orders of Karl Rove for a change?

A Zarkov, as Branch Rickey tells us, luck is the residue of design. Your bridge designer didn't just intuit the right outcome because he was a random citizen: many designers intuit good solutions because they've had years of training and experience that allow them to size up a situation rapidly. (Since you cite bridges, Frank Gehry just designed a stunning bridge in Chicago even though he'd never designed a bridge before; but he's been designing for 40 years, he understands form, he understands structure, he understands people flow, and he understands ADA access. He didn't just stumble into a good bridge design.)

With Bush, the proof is in the pudding: where are the examples of him having background in anything? Where in his life story are examples of him really buckling down and learning something? Where are the demonstrations of a reflective individual seeking out guidance and wisdom to help make good intuitive decisions? As i noted above, the Bush track record in the White House is a series of poor decisions; we need to understand this somehow.

As for Kerry and Carter, i think, as the article implies, there is a gap between Carter wanting to study the literal construction documents of a submarine and someone wanting to understand the ramifications of a decision. I agree that you can analyze a problem to death, and there is certainly a real possibility of this occurring in a Kerry administration, but after 4 years of refusing to analyze anything other than the politics of a scenario, i think it would be rather refreshing.

PT, the handiest example we can cite is the decision-making on the postwar in Iraq. The people who had useful insights were excluded from the decision-making process; the decisions, such as they were, were based, as Cheney was obliging enough to tell Russert, on "I really believe."

Does anyone seriously deny that Bush is lazy? There isn't any evidence to the contrary. Now either he is supremely gifted and doesn't have to work as hard as other people to absorb and evalualate information in order to make a decision, or Brad's conjecture has got to be correct. Anyone ready to place a hard bet on the first alternative?

Well, Bush just told the Amish that God speaks through him (actual quote). And he's said similar things before. Is this a cynical ploy, or does he actually believe it?

A. Zarkov: I remember asking a decision theorist if he used decision theory in making a certain personal decision.

A. Zarkov: He was right. You could say he was just lucky, but his string of successes in bridge design seems to indicate it was more than luck.

I think you're doing decision theory a big disservice with both of these anecdotes. decision theory is based in large part on the assumption that what you call intuition has an empirical basis. even if it can't yet be described mechanistically or probabilistically, we can at least expect successive attempts to be better than a random walk.

and any reasonable decision-making process weighs statistics and precedents heavily when they are available. e.g. under any reasonable decision theory a "good" decisionmaking process will oppose hiring bridge builders whose bridges have consistently failed and favor hiring those whose bridges have withstood the test of time. also, "intuitive" knowledge is almost always associated with immersion in detail, and the fact that immersion in detail does not lead to good decisions does not make that association any less meaningful.

GW's intuition is of interest primarily because of its consistent (i.e. statistically significant) apparent failure rate, but apparently the fact that intuition can yield worse than random results has already been shown with stockbrokers, so I guess with a CEO president it's not that far fetched...

This article makes me think of the book by James Surowiecki, "The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few..."

Kerry's style aggregates the intelligence of the many, rather than Bush's reliance on his own bulb (however dim or bright some might think it is). Looking at both sides of an issue thoughtfully will lead to fewer problems of the "group think" recently criticized by the intelligence commission reports.

Kerry applies the lessons presented by McNamara in "Fog of War," most notably, the need for empathy.

"The Wall Street Journal Opinions page is conservative, but their news reporting tends to have a liberal slant."

There are people in this country who believe the WSJ news is slanted liberal.

And they call US the extremists.

Carlos -- you want reasons spelled out? OK

1. Saddam was murdering and torturing thousands.
2. Saddam was a threat to attack neighboring countries, having already done so.
3. Saddam supported terrorists (he gave cash rewards for Palestinian terrorism.)
4. Saddam was in continuing violation of numerous Security Council resolutions
5. Saddam was in violation of commitments he had made when he surrendered in 1991.
6. Saddam was seeking WMDs
7. There was a risk that Saddam might share weapons with terrorists in the future.
8. Saddam was regularly firing anti-aircraft weapons at our airplanes.
9. We could defeat Saddam's army relatively easily.
10. Bringing democracy to the Middle East could be a long-term solution to the problems in that region.

These 10 reasons proved to be correct. Even though Saddam didn't have stores of WMDs, they justified his overthrow, in my opinion. Of course, there were arguments against the war, as well, but I believe the arguments in favor were stronger.

So whom would you rather steer the ship?

I'll take the one capable of altering course after someone sees a gigantic iceberg dead ahead (that would be Kerry).

Don't sully the WSJ. It is the best news page in print, with a very clear distinction between editorial comments and news reporting.

Lots of papers could take some lessons from their editorial staff.

Gee, David, you know your litany by heart, don't you? Does it bother you that a stateless Irak is potentially more, not less, of a threat to its neighbours and the US than Saddam's Baathist regime was? And I mean, a lot of us were telling you there was a considerable risk things would turn this way, way before the war started. But we were all unpatriotic, idiocratic, girlie, ultra-liberal if not overt Stalinist al-Qaeda footsoldiers...

By the way, have you read, one, one single, liberal arguing that Saddam did not deserve to be removed in some absolute sense in the cozy ether of the blogosphere? Sure, we found him sexy when he was speaking to us on TV, but to say that he was Irak's dream ruler, how demented would one have to be?

"10. Bringing democracy to the Middle East could be a long-term solution to the problems in that region."

Not could, could have been... Now, I am not so sure anymore I want to know what would be the current outcome of democracy in and around the Middle-East...

'. Saddam was murdering and torturing thousands'

So when are we sending troops to Sudan, where 100s of thousands are being tortured and killed ?
.
'2. Saddam was a threat to attack neighboring countries, having already done so.'

His army had been hollowed out by years of sanctions. Turkey, his next door neighbor, didn't fear him. Iran didn't fear him. He couldn't even control his own north area. Even KUwait had little reasont to fear him with American troops there.

'3. Saddam supported terrorists (he gave cash rewards for Palestinian terrorism.)'

Pakistan has and had training camps for Al Qaeda. Not for Hamas. It was and is actively supporting terrorist actions in India and was one of 3 countries to support the Taliban.

Yes, Saddam gave cash rewards to families of sucide bombers. Despicable as it might be, those actions aren't even remotely comparable to Saudi or Pakistani assitance.

And to make things crystal clear, our enemy is Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. Not Hamas, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers.

'4. Saddam was in continuing violation of numerous Security Council resolutions'

ISrael is in violation of numberous UN resolutions. When are we invading it ? And since when do we enforce Sec. Council resolutions unilaterally, anyway ?

'5. Saddam was in violation of commitments he had made when he surrendered in 1991.'

He had allowed inspectors in.

'6. Saddam was seeking WMDs'

He had no WMDs or WMD programs to speak off at all.

'7. There was a risk that Saddam might share weapons with terrorists in the future.'

Weapons he didn't have, with Al Qaeda terroriwsts he didn't have operational links with.

'8. Saddam was regularly firing anti-aircraft weapons at our airplanes.'

a) None of them hit us
b) They were when we were enforcing the no-fly zones. While I think the zones were good ideas, firing anti-aircrafy at planes over your territory is a different kettle of fish from attacling in other areas.

'9. We could defeat Saddam's army relatively easily.'

And yet this army threatened the ME !!

And spend 100s of billions of dollars and keep 140K troops down for several years.

'10. Bringing democracy to the Middle East could be a long-term solution to the problems in that region.'

A democracy brought through bayonets and bullets, that increases anti-American sentiment (as British MPs agree) immensely is unlikely to surivive or thrive, let alone spread.

How many Iraqi people have coalition forces killed? and how many more people died merely because of insurgency against the occupation? that's likely more than the number saddam would have killed.
too bad kerry also voted for the war.

'Don't sully the WSJ. It is the best news page in print, with a very clear distinction between editorial comments and news reporting.

Lots of papers could take some lessons from their editorial staff'

From their regular news editors, not from their editorial page. FWIW, I think the news page of the WSJ is the best in the country along with that of the Washington Post (the WSJ has much better business overage, WashPost has better international and government coverage).

But the editorial page of the WSJ is shrill beyond belief. They make Paul Krugman look positively sane, theyr'e so biased.

There is something to be said for making a decion and acting promptly on it - both the military and the B-schools emphasize that a good decision now beats a great decision later.

But another military rule is that you do not reinforce failure if your decision turns out to be not so good. And the only way to know if your decision wasn't so good is to listen to people who tell you things aren't peachy-keen.

Re David's justifications for invading Iraq: what Sirp Ent said.

A. Zarkov wrote, "As for Kerry, his style sounds like Carter’s. I regard Carter as the worst president since the end of WWII because his decisions were so poor, and we are living with the pernicious effects of his decisions to this day."

Worse than *Reagan*? Apparently Reagan was so out of it that he didn't even know about the US nuclear triad:

From "Global Warming," review by Robert G. Kaiser of _Reagan and Gorbachev : How the Cold War Ended_, by JACK MATLOCK (review at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2004Jul22.html ):

"As Lou Cannon reports in his masterful biography of the president, 'Reagan did not know enough about nuclear weapons systems to formulate a policy to accomplish his objectives,' which were to reduce the level of nuclear arms. For example, Cannon writes, Reagan didn't realize that U.S. submarines and
bombers carried nuclear weapons."

And Cannon is a *conservative*...

Responding to Howard, "PT, the handiest example we can cite is the decision-making on the postwar in Iraq. The people who had useful insights were excluded from the decision-making process; the decisions, such as they were, were based, as Cheney was obliging enough to tell Russert, on 'I really believe.'"

This was the first example I thought of as well, but I'm not sure it actually supports the thesis. As I understand the process in this case, both VP Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld had strong opinions on the reconstruction and occupation, which they expressed to the President; it also seems clear that he was aware that a small occupation force and a quick turnover of "sovreignty" (however defined) were politically favored. One can make the case that advisors who bring opinions which are contrary to what is demanded politically are excluded (ie, experts who think that we will need a big occupation force are not listened to because their advice is contrary to the political requirements of a small occupation force). In this case I would argue that he had done his homework and that he had information, it's just that the information he wanted for making the decision was primarily on political impacts. While I'm prepared to agree with Dr. DeLong's model (or disagree with it), I don't really see this example as evidence for it -- just evidence that the considerations that would be important to us in making this decision are vastly different from the ones that were actually in play when Bush made it.

'The Wall Street Journal Opinions page is conservative, but their news reporting tends to have a liberal slant.'

So you admit that truth-telling is an objectively liberal characteristic ?

"He's messed up America's superb economy. In 3 1/2 years, he's managed to turn budget surplus into *record breaking* deficits."

That's a masterpiece of bad timing, Jean Philippe, coming as it does the same day this breaks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/business/29tax.html?ei=5006&en=26b81d34ef09dc4e&ex=1091678400&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

---------quote-------------
The overall income Americans reported to the government shrank for two consecutive years after the Internet stock market bubble burst in 2000....

While the recession that hit the economy in 2001 in the wake of the market plunge was considered relatively mild, the new information shows that its effect on Americans' incomes, particularly those at the upper end of the spectrum, was much more severe. ....

The unprecedented back-to-back declines in reported incomes was caused primarily by the combination of the big fall in the stock market and the erosion of jobs and wages in well-paying industries in the early years of the decade.

....

Falling incomes, rather than tax cuts, appear to count for the greatest share of the decline in income taxes paid. That is because the higher one stood on the income ladder the greater the impact was likely to be from the stock market crunch.

At the same time many of those whose incomes fell the most - those reporting $200,000 to $10 million in income - paid at the highest rates, which meant that the drain on revenues was even greater when their incomes shrank.

More than 352,000 taxpayers, one of every eight who had worked their way above $200,000 of income in 2000, fell below that figure in 2002.

At the very top the ranks thinned by more than half. The number of taxpayers reporting adjusted gross income of $10 million or more fell to 5,280 from 11,215.

The combined income of this rich and thin slice of Americans plummeted 63 percent, to $110 billion, in 2002 from $300 billion in 2000. Among those who stayed in this category average annual income fell 22 percent, to $20.9 million from almost $26.8 million in 2000.
------------endquote-----------

Btw, I am not now, nor have ever been--unlike Teresa Heinz Kerry (who you seem to be trying to emulate)--a Republican

Ah! There aren't so many options left, Patrick, with the US political system as it is. You must be one of those prentend-to-be-independent liberterians who always and everywhere defend Bush even has he makes overt attempts to curtail those personal liberties libertarians pretends to die for.

"To some extent, taxes fell more than incomes because of tax cuts championed by President Bush and approved by Congress in 2001. [And the rest of it can be explained by falling incomes.]"

Indeed, how far off are we from the job creation projections that were supposed to justify wrecking the US budget? Aren't we creating on most months fewer jobs than necessary to keep up with the expansion of the labor force? Keep in mind that W has made a cruisade out making these tax cuts permanents, so it's not like he meant them as a temporary stimulus, however uneffective they turned out to be.

The beauty of your quote is that it turns W's failure to create jobs and lift Wall Street's expectations back to where they were under Clinton into an excuse for the worse budget in modern history. I have to admit I have a strange sense of admiration for your cunny ability to deceive.

Andrew McManama-Smith -- let's do the math.

Saddam killed around 1 - 2 million people during a period of 25 years or so. That's 40,000 to 80,000 per year. Let's assume that if he had remained in power, he would have killed 50,000 people a year.

So far, about 900 Americans have been killed. Other Coalition deaths might be another couple of hundred. I've seen no accurate figures on Iraqi deaths during the war, but the very highest estimate I've seen was on the order of 10,000. Add in perhaps 200 Iraqi civilians murdered by these barbaric cowards. The total is less than 12,000.

At 50,000 murders per year, in the 15 months since our invasion began, Saddam would have killed 62,500 more people. Based on this assumption, our overthrow of Saddam has already saved more than 50,000 lives.

BTW I don't accept the idea that we have any responsibility for deaths "due to the insurrection." The monstrous fiends who commit mass murder of civilians and destroy the infrastructure need to be defeated. It wouldn't be right to let them re-take power just because they're more bloodthirsty than we are.

"PS. Nice of you to armchair admiral Kerry's wartime actions, Patrick; too bad the military didn't see fit to agree with you at the time, although, of course, what do they know?"

In fact, most (about 90%)of Kerry's colleagues from Vietnam agree with me. And they are shortly going to make a huge splash publicizing that fact.

Jean-Philippe says: 'In 3 1/2 years, he's managed to turn budget surplus into *record breaking* deficits.' He must be thinking in dollar terms, for as a % of GDP deficits were higher in the 80s. Shall we say that under W., the US GDP grew to a *record breaking* level?

There are only 3 major problems with your maths, David:

1. The Baathist regime was not nearly as bloody when we invaded has it had been in the past. Under reasonable projections, there probably would not have been more than a few hundred dead civilians since the invasion. That was the whole point of the no-fly zones, after all.

2. 10,000 is the number due to US miliary operations. It does not cover terrorist murders since the beginning of the occupation.

3. We would all love to see the monstrous fiends who commit mass murder of civilians and destroy the infrastructure defeated. There are little chances at this stage that they will be. And when the US leaves, it's hard to imagine a bloody civil war will not ensue. And if it does, the ensuing number of victims will dwarf Saddam's political murders and war crimes.

I hope it won't and it may not. But frankly, a stateless country with two ethinicies at least, and three brands of religion with a history of opression by a minority, now ruled by local islamist militias sounds to me like a ticking time bomb, doesn't it to you? You won't probably accept responsability at that point either, but like it or not, the whole Arab world (who?) will hold the US accountable for that, friendly liberal Arabs included (you know those people who are supposed to be our allies inside Arab regimes and be the seeds of the democracies we're supposed to be fostering all over the region.) And in some objective sense, well...

It's funny, now that I remember, I made these exact same points before the war on this very blog...

'In fact, most (about 90%)of Kerry's colleagues from Vietnam agree with me. And they are shortly going to make a huge splash publicizing that fact.'

Out of Kerry's crewmates, 9 or 10 (all but 1) think he was a great commander, and a heroic man. The leaer of that so-called group was specifically sent by the Nixon administration to attack Kerry for his anti-war efforts in 191. The leader (O"Neil) himself was not a Kerry colleague, at all and dir not serve with him.

The 90% claim is bogus as well.

Jean-Philippe Stijns -- why are you so pessimistic about the prospects for a democratic government in Iraq? Polls show big majorities of the Iraqi people want democracy to succeed.

Elections for the National Council are scheduled quite soon. They seem to be lurching forward, despite the carnage and the politicking. Many people have chosen to become candidates, despite the risk from the insurgents. Maybe the whole thing will collapse into civil war, but so far it looks like it has a good chance to succeed.

The Swift Boat Veterans Against Truth? Yeah, right, Patrick...they really deserve to be taken seriously....

The people who were there at that time, Patrick, disagree with you and with them.

P.S. Fair enough, walons, I forgot for a second the budgetary pain inflicted by Saint Reagan. "Deficits don't matter" Reagan 1:1

I need to ask, two decades, is that a long enough period to qualify as recent history? Or do we have to roll the tape back to Washington?

By the way, *if* walons is a oh-so-funny reference to my being Wallonian, would you please write it with 2 l's at least?

David, I can only answer your question by asking you where do you find all that hope. Neither the US nor the nascent Iraki army seem to control large parts of the country. The insurgents kill more tropps and innocents everyday. These are simply not conditions to hold an election. What makes you think there won't be attacks on polling stations? If so, what makes you believe Irakis will register to vote, however much they would love to elect their government?

Hope is beautiful but it's a way to analyse facts and plan or is it?

Here are some judgments of John Kerry by people who served with and commanded him in Vietnam:

"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

and

"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom."

-- Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)

and

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. ....

"Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"

-- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)
nd

Jean-Philippe Stijns, it's true that the Alawi government in Iraq doesn't control the entire country, but they do control most of it -- all but certain cities like Falluja, and certain neighborhoods of Baghdad.

I agree that there will be attacks on pollling stations and the insurgents will continue to kill whosever they can. You're right that these are not ideal conditions for democracy. Still, most Iraqi people want democracy to work. Also, the Iraqis lived under Saddam, so they're very motivated to prevent his followers from re-taking the country.

Well, it seems obvious from these postings, that whatever mental deficiency Bush may suffer won't be corrected by his advisors.

Lame-brain prince assumes throne after dissolute early years- surrounded by foolish and dishonest courtiers-

What made us think this could never happen to the good old US of A?

To be fair and balanced, Patrick, who is not Republican, should compare what Kerry was supposed to be doing risking his life in Vietnam with what brat George Bush was expected to be doing in Texas. It doesn't even pass the giggle test, Patrick. One on a boat fighting the ennemy, the other, admitedly addicted to cocaine trying as hard as he can to avoid serving his country. Are you some king of stand-up comic or what?

Jean-Philippe Stijns, Bush has never admitted to using cocaine or any other drug. He did refuse to answer a question on the subject. No evidence has ever been brought forward of Bush drug usage, despite intensive searching.

Courageous military service isn't a measure of Presidential ability. Other we'd have more admiration for President George McGovern and President Bob Dole. Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam and three minor injuries hardly compare to the 40 or 50 sorties that McGovern flew in WW2 or Dole's loss of use of his right hand.

BTW, Bush did qualify as a pilot of a difficult-to-fly jet fighter plane. That's an achievement.

Trust Patrick to "forget" the statements of the 9 or so people who were actually on his boat, all of whom (except one) support him fully. HE saved the life of one of them too.

http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20040727/27jul2004004927.html

'Once, he even directed the helmsman to beach the boat, right into the teeth of an ambush, and pursued our attackers on foot, into the jungle. In the toughest of situations, Lieutenant Kerry showed judgment, loyalty and courage. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.'

And before he drank the Republican Kool-Aid, Grant Hubbard said in his official report on Kerry that Kerry was one of the top few in his command.

'Courageous military service isn't a measure of Presidential ability. Other we'd have more admiration for President George McGovern and President Bob Dole. Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam and three minor injuries hardly compare to the 40 or 50 sorties that McGovern flew in WW2 or Dole's loss of use of his right hand'

Kerry actually served around 10 months in Vietnam, in 2 separate tours of duty. And you're gith that courageous military service is not the only way to judge a President. It does however, give me some basic confidence in the ability, patriotism and courage of Kerry. Frankly, the utter incompeteence of the Bush administration is so extreme that I need little more to vote for him.

"The Swift Boat Veterans Against Truth? Yeah, right, Patrick...they really deserve to be taken seriously....

"The people who were there at that time, Patrick, disagree with you and with them."

When you can't even go one paragraph without contradicting yourself, you are in trouble. BY DEFINITION, the SBVFT, were "there at that time".

So, please tell the nice comments section why 200+ men who were "there at that time", and who oppose Kerry's presidential bid, don't deserve to be taken seriously, but nine who do support him, should be taken seriously.

PT, i have to disagree with you. Taking into account "information" (and i use the term loosely) from people who have no experience or background in the matter at hand, indeed, who have an on-the-record disdain for the matter at hand, "nation building," is not the same as making an informed decision. This isn't even a case of in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king: bush and everyone he relied on for input were blind on the subject, and willfully refused to involve people with knowledge and information. (indeed, not only refused to involve; publically dissed.) That's why i grabbed this as my first example. (To put it another way, if Bush came out and said that the earth was flat, and it turned out that his advisers were all members of the flat earth society, that wouldn't make him well-informed.)

Patrick, the founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill, is a political thug and longtime Republican aparatchik who has been busy smearing Kerry since the Nixon Administration. Grant Hibbard, as Sirp Ent notes, has changed his tune from his contemporaneous accounts. I have little doubt that Steve Gardner and Capt. Charles Plumly would, if we wasted the time to dig into them, prove to be equally lacking in credibility. We might also note that Kerry's military records show uniformly positive evaluations of his performance in Vietnam.

The reduction of the right-wing to mouth-foaming hatred is an only too familiar sight in these times, but that doesn't mean that we have to listen.

'So, please tell the nice comments section why 200+ men who were "there at that time", and who oppose Kerry's presidential bid, don't deserve to be taken seriously, but nine who do support him, should be taken seriously.'

1) The 9 were those who served under him. Really. None of the others (except one) served under him.
2) There are, in fact, thousands of Veitnam veterans who do support Kerry. In our environment, its not surprising that you would fine Vietnam vets who oppose him, but they didn't directly serve in his unit. But your 200 to 9 comparison is bogus for that reason.
3) A lot of the people who oppose him wrote excellent reviews of him before. 2 defended him as late as 1996 in a campaigh.
4) Of course, some oppose not his service, but his anti-Vietnam war stance later. A legitimate point, but thats not the same as questioning his service.

But hey, Kerry can get 200 pkus people to say he was in Nam. How many peopl can Bush get for his "service" ?

Incidentally, its a lie that the staged his battles for camera.

'Patrick, the founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill, is a political thug and longtime Republican aparatchik who has been busy smearing Kerry since the Nixon Administration. Grant Hibbard, as Sirp Ent notes, has changed his tune from his contemporaneous accounts. I have little doubt that Steve Gardner and Capt. Charles Plumly would, if we wasted the time to dig into them, prove to be equally lacking in credibility'

I should point out that there were and are Vietnam vets who disliked Kerry for his statements against the war. Right wing propoganda has also turned others against Kerry because of attempts to link him to Jane Fonda. And of course, he's a liberal Democrat.

Now, I personally wish we had got someone with a military record as heroic as Kerry's (like former Senator Bob Kerrey, but without his war crime accusation), but without his vietnam war protest record. Personally, I think it showed courage for a youg man in his twenties to go up against Nixon and Co. for a cause he believed in. However, its clear that the Right wing machine will attack him for it.

What we can do to counteract is to point out the vets and military officers who support Kerry, and point out his dedication to Vet issues. [ see this for an example]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22247-2004Jul28.html

"To be fair and balanced, Patrick, who is not Republican, should compare what Kerry was supposed to be doing risking his life in Vietnam...."

I guess time consistency isn't a strength on your resume. Bush is two years older than Kerry. That is the major difference between the two men's military service.

Kerry graduated from Yale in 1966, and applied for an extended student deferment. When it was denied, he enlisted in the navy rather than be drafted. This was in the middle of LBJ's escalation of the Vietnam War. At the time, becoming a naval officer was a privileged way to meet your military obligation without having to risk combat (N. Vietnam had no navy to speak of).

Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when F-102s flown by ANG pilots were taking part in air combat in Vietnam. Bush specifically enlisted to train as a fighter pilot. He'd have to be as stupid as you people--remember the proverb about people in glass houses--want him to be to think that was a good way to avoid risking his life.

Kerry, after his training, got a position on a frigate in a non-combat capacity. His duties entailed keeping the ship tidy, and reading history lessons over the ship's loudspeaker as it cruised the Pacific. (You can look it up, in Tour of Duty) He was in much less physical danger doing this than Bush later was training on jet fighters and performing interceptor missions in the U.S.

While ashore in Vietnam, Kerry saw the Swift Boats and immediately thought of his hero JFK's PT-109. At the time, those Swift Boats patrolled the coasts of Vietnam, not its rivers and canals.

Kerry's ship received a new Captain about this time, and Kerry hated him. So Kerry applied to Swift Boat school in the USA. When accepted, he accomplished three things important to him; he got away from the 24/7 supervision of a Captain he disliked, he got to spend some time with the woman who became his first wife (she lived with him off base in California), and now he was just like JFK.

Only when Kerry returned to Vietnam in December 1968 did the Swift Boat missions change to the dangerous business recreated by Director-Star Lt. Kerry in the film you can see tonight. After receiving three scratches Kerry used them to request a transfer back to the safety of Brooklyn. After 4 months. Somebody had to take his place.

Bush at this time was training on a combat aircraft while Kerry was beating his retreat. When Bush heard about a program he could volunteer for in Vietnam, he was denied because; 1. Nixon had Vietnamized the war and we needed fewer pilots over there. 2. The F-102 was being phased out of Vietnam because it wasn't particularly good at what needed to be done. 3. Other pilots had more hours in the cockpit, and they got the slots he wanted.

So, it was just a matter of luck that Kerry saw combat and Bush didn't. But don't confuse yourself by accepting these simple facts, I'd think less of you for it.

"...with what brat George Bush was expected to be doing in Texas. It doesn't even pass the giggle test, Patrick. One on a boat fighting the ennemy, the other, admitedly addicted to cocaine..."

Which, as another contributor has pointed out, is a lie.

"...trying as hard as he can to avoid serving his country."

By training to fly a combat plane in use in the war. Smart. Really smart.

" Are you some king of stand-up comic or what?"

I have my moments. Bi-partisan moments. I appeared on two talk shows recently defending a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton's from slanderous right-wing attacks. It amused some.

"Patrick, the founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill, is a political thug and longtime Republican aparatchik...."

This is as accurate as your claims that Bill Clinton didn't confuse Scalia with Justice Kennedy. But you won't have to find a bookstore to prove it to yourself, the truth is readily available on the internet.

John O'Neill was a Democrat (or at least voted for Hubert Humphrey in 1968) when he took on John Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in 1970. His only motivation THEN was to counter the lies of John Kerry. And that appears to be his motivation today as well.

I actually tried reading Patrick's version of history right up until we get to the "three scratches."

Same old Patrick after all....

Jon, i agree with you: there are Vietnam vets who quite honorably disagree with Kerry's post-service stance on the war, but that wasn't the point ol' Patrick was making. His point was that Kerry was unfit to command a swift boat and engaged in dangerous actions 'cause these particular guys have, well after the fact, said so.

You know, Patrick takes the cake for chutzpah. Faced with the pathetic record or non-military record of Bush, he tries to spin it desperately any way he can:

So lets translate:

Kerry enlisted.

'Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when F-102s flown by ANG pilots were taking part in air combat in Vietnam. Bush specifically enlisted to train as a fighter pilot.'

Bush specifically joined the ANG at a time that the children of rich and well connected families were joining the ANG to get out of serving in Vietnam. The chance of someone from the ANG being sent to Vietnam involuntrarily was almost non-existent. And Bush was not courageous enough to volunteer

Incidentally, Bush scored int he 25th percentile in pilot apptitude. He'd never have got into the ANG unless the Texas House Speaker had pulled some strings.

'He'd have to be as stupid as you people--remember the proverb about people in glass houses--want him to be to think that was a good way to avoid risking his life.'

Bush has said specifically that he did not want to go Vietnam and this was one way to avoid it.
And incidentally, he said when enlisting that he did not want to serve overseas.

'Kerry, after his training, got a position on a frigate in a non-combat capacity. His duties entailed keeping the ship tidy, and reading history lessons over the ship's loudspeaker as it cruised the Pacific. (You can look it up, in Tour of Duty) He was in much less physical danger doing this than Bush later was training on jet fighters and performing interceptor missions in the U.S.'

Yes, Bush was in grave danger flying ont he occasional weekend and defending Texas against the swarms of locusts in his plane.

'Only when Kerry returned to Vietnam in December 1968 did the Swift Boat missions change to the dangerous business recreated by Director-Star Lt. Kerry in the film you can see tonight'

Another lie. You claimed that Kerry staged his battles and that was a lie. Incidentally, Swift Boat missions were pretty dangerous even before then. Its amazing how you can tell us what Kerry was thinking then.

'After receiving three scratches Kerry used them to request a transfer back to the safety of Brooklyn.

Kerry received 3 wounds in combat. That is what a purple heart is for. Of course, for a keyboard flogger like yourself, a paper cut is probably a dangerous action. And he recieved a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in action. Those were for actions involing more courage than you're ever likely to display. Incdientaly, we have combat reports on the 2nd and 3rd Purple Hearts at least so even liars like you would find them hard to dispute.

'After 4 months. Somebody had to take his place.''

And George Bush's position was being filled by what ? Yosemite Sam ? The same sock that filled his crotch when he was playing Prezident on the carrier ?

'Bush at this time was training on a combat aircraft while Kerry was beating his retreat. When Bush heard about a program he could volunteer for in Vietnam, he was denied because'

Aha, I see it now. Commander Bush, strided in and asked gallantly for a Vietnam commission which was denied him ? What do you mean, he didn't ask ? Oops. When Kerry asks for a Vietnam tour of duty, it shows his opportunism. When Bush doesn't ask for one, it shows his great courage.

Incidentally, you forgot to mention his non-service in Okhlahoma, as well as the strings that were undoubtedly pulled to get him his transfer.

And incidentally, he did fail his flight physical too. Ooops. So much for Lt. Bush, bravely defending Texas against Russian interceptors.

'By training to fly a combat plane in use in the war. Smart. Really smart'

Not really smart, but commonplace. In those days the national guard was the place to go for people who wanted to avoid serving in Nam. Colin Powell has said it.

Here are the comparative war records of the two:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_400.html

'John O'Neill was a Democrat (or at least voted for Hubert Humphrey in 1968) when he took on John Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show in 1970. His only motivation THEN was to counter the lies of John Kerry'

Nice Try. I listened to a segment on TV the other night from the Nixon Tapes. Nixon specifically suggested using O'Neill to counter Kerry on the TV and talk show trail.

Oh, Patrick, lines like this are why we treat you as a "trust but verify" case par excellence:

"This is as accurate as your claims that Bill Clinton didn't confuse Scalia with Justice Kennedy."

First, you meant to say Bork, not Kennedy. More ipmortant, i never claimed that clinton didn't get the chronology wrong (rather different than "confusing"); i asked you for your evidence. Your first pass at the evidence was incomplete. I asked you for a further cite, because what you provided didn't do the job. You threw a fit and delivered some lecture about how easy it was to find a copy of the book, which I finally did while passing through the Denver airport (skipping lunch to look at the book just for you). I then said you were right, but don't let it go to your head.

This all happened so recently that it would be easy enough for you to look it up in Brad's archives, but you just can't seem to care enough to get your stories correct.

As for O'Neill, i have no idea what his voting record was. I do know - as sirp ent notes, that o'neill was recruited by Chuck Colson to attack Kerry, that he has long-standing ties to rehnquist, bush sr., and other well-connected Texas republicans, and that all of this has been well-documented and discussed in the new yorker, the boston globe, and the houston chronicle.

sirp ent: excellent work....

BTW, sirp ent, just to add a couple of fine points: getting 3 purple hearts was regarded as a legitimate basis to request a transfer, which his commander accepted and moved to implement, which involved Kerry first moving to Cam Ranh Bay for a month and then being transferred to Brooklyn.

And then Kerry requested an early discharge for the horrible, unamerican purpose of...running for congress.

David,

"Bush has never admitted to using cocaine or any other drug."

Shucks, I didn't think many addicts did. Isn't that the point?

"BTW, Bush did qualify as a pilot of a difficult-to-fly jet fighter plane. That's an achievement."

Hardly.

1. Bush was in one of the few units with two man cockpit aircraft. Shrub was reportedly restricted to only those. (Protect daddy's little boy)?

2. I remember a Flight Safety magazine from the mid 1960's, an F-102 departed at high altitude (like a stall), the pilot ejected. The aircraft landed itself (gear up), the pictures were startling. You could see, after the aircraft came to a stop, the engine ran for quite a bit, blackening the shrub behind it. The caption said, after an hour, they found the aircraft and had to shut the engine down. Doesn't sound all that difficult.

3. Almost all the flying in the F-102 was via ground control and vectors. Little, if any, flying ability was required, unless you were solo. Bringing one back to point 1.

Oh, and PRS.

I am in contact with the "Swift Boat" dudes. I cannot seem to contact even one who served with Kerrey. Are they afraid? One claims to be a member of a local VFW. Funny how there is no record of him there.

BTW, after meeting two of the "Swift Boaters", I would tend to believe what was written at the time (why was it not disputed then?) as their memories of that time were well laced with, um, fog, and other things.

Jean-Philippe,

Nope. Not a reference to Wallonia. You're having bad luck today with your emphatic **'s.

Sky-Ho: Earlier in this thread, Jean-Philippe Stijns alleged that Bush had admitted cocaine use. I pointed out that his allegation was incorrect.

Refusing to answer questions about cocaine use amounts to an admission. Not in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. How hard would it have been to have said "no" if the answer was "no"?

There are lots of things that you can't put a man in jail for that make him untrustworthy.

Sirp Ent makes comments like:

“Those were for actions involing (sic) more courage than you're ever likely to display.”

“. . . we have combat reports on the 2nd and 3rd Purple Hearts at least so even liars like you would find them hard to dispute.”

Such invective does not help your cause. Neither does using a dubious publication like “Mother Jones” as a reference.

This is a tedious, useless, and uncivil argument over ancient history that has minimal bearing on judging the two candidates. Why not discuss their respective political records, which seem more pertinent to their respective fitness for POTUS. But how do we compare administrative experience against legislative experience? It seems like most presidents who came from Congress were less than spectacular. I’m thinking of Truman, Kennedy, Ford, and Nixon. I don’t count being VP as much in the way of administrative experience. Of course governors can turn out to be real duds as president. So I’m thinking it’s a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

zizka: You have a point, he could say yes or no. But politicians rarely give these kind of simple answers; such is the nature of that business. How many abusive questions do you expect a public official to keep on answering? Were you ever a drug addict? Have you ever molested children? Do you abuse animals? Have you ever raped a nun? Did you steal from the collection box in Church? The list is endless. Is there even prima facie evidence that Bush was addicted to cocaine? Quoting from Mother Jones and Pravda doesn’t count for anything.

"But don't confuse yourself by accepting these simple facts, I'd think less of you for it."

What does that mean? Do you really believe these stories or is that your wink, a way to let us know that you're just pulling our legs?

I'll grant you that Bush's TANG experience exceeded Quayle's service, at least until he blew off his last year, but the idea that National Guard duty during Viet Nam was a display of bravery is a desperate attempt to rewrite history. He pulled strings to get his C-grade ass to the front of a 200 person queue causing another American to get drafted into combat in his place. Then, for whatever reason, Bush couldn't even fulfill that duty.

Well, a couple of points. First, with respect to Kerry attacking the guy with the grenade launcher putting his ship in danger, well, turning tail and running also would have put the ship in danger as they were not out of range....so it was a Hobson's choice and Kerry chose correctly.

Second, Patrick seems to ignore the fact that the docs pulled shrapnel out of Kerry when he got the Purple Hearts, but fact are such tedious useless and uncivil things that they have minimal bearing on reality.

Finally, with respect to the Kerry/Bush comparisons, does anyone recall Bush having any close friends from his youth or early manhood, or any close friends at all. Kerry appears to have many of them from school, the military, etc. Does that not say something about both men?

Kerry just knocked the ball out of the park! For once I agree with David Brooks--the Republicans are gonna have to go positive. Please brace for a cataract of false representations about their great achievements.

A. Zarkov, if you want to worry about tedious, uncivil arguments, i'd suggest you aim your concern at Patrick. There's a very simple story here: Kerry served, Bush didn't. It's relevant to assessing their overall character, but not dispositive. It's the Patricks of the world who want to make Kerry's medals go away, and make Bush's limited national guard service into something heroic, that turn this into a tedious matter.

As for "when did you stop beating your wife," yes, it would be grand if that whole train of questioning left american politics, but still: Bush is prepared to send people away to jail for a very long time for doing what he likely did. He should at least answer the question on that basis alone, so that we can understand what changed his thinking....

As for executive experience, in my estimation, the Bush administration has given the idea of a CEO presidency a bad name. This is too bad, because there are many excellent CEOs who are informed, honest, and possessed of good judgement. Who knew that when Bush et al promised a CEO administration, they meant '70s style CEO?

howard: I don’t notice Patrick engaging in the kind of vitriol that is directed against him. If I missed it, please point it out to me.

As to the character issue, I don’t hold this ancient history against either Bush or Kerry because I don’t believe in immutable character flaws. Otherwise Ted Kennedy would be absolutely unfit to serve in the US Senate given his own much more serious ancient history.

The laws mandating excessive incarceration for the use and possession of cocaine (and other substances) didn’t originate from Bush. I don’t like these laws myself and as a juror I would not send someone to jail for a long time for mere possession. But I don’t have to run for office either. As the executive Bush is duty bound to enforce the will of the legislature. True he could exercise leadership to beat back the insanity of our drug laws. But unless I see real proof that he was a pothead or a cocaine user, I’m not going to hold this against him. I don’t expect Kerry would behave any differently as the executive.

I think I would prefer the 1970s CEO to the slime (my own bit of vitriol) running today’s corporations. They didn’t steal as much wealth from the stockholders and the employees. Look at what’s happened to industrial research. They have virtually killed it. In the 1970s 70% of the published research papers came from industrial labs. Today the figure is 7%. Most everything comes from academia, and it’s not as good.

One cannot apply a rule that "refusal to answer means guilt." Every candidate stops providing information at some point.

E.g., John Kerry has also refused certain information. He and his wife chose not to release her income tax return. He didn't authorize the release his full military records. AFAIK he has never publicly denied that he used drugs. Yet, it would obviously be wrong to conclude that Kerry and his wife cheated on their income tax, and that he went AWOL and was a druggie.

A. Zarkov wrote, "howard: I don’t notice Patrick engaging in the kind of vitriol that is directed against him. If I missed it, please point it out to me." That's because you don't know Patrick well enough. He's known on USENET's sci.econ for being particularly despicable.

"As to the character issue, I don’t hold this ancient history against either Bush or Kerry because I don’t believe in immutable character flaws." But that misses the point. The point is that *Republicans* constantly bring up character in the most hypocritical fashion.

"The laws mandating excessive incarceration for the use and possession of cocaine (and other substances) didn’t originate from Bush." But the Republican Party constantly plays the "Democrats are soft on crime" card.

"As the executive Bush is duty bound to enforce the will of the legislature." That's not so clear. Executives have some leeway in the interpretation and enforcement of laws.

"Look at what’s happened to industrial research. They have virtually killed it. In the 1970s 70% of the published research papers came from industrial labs. Today the figure is 7%. Most everything comes from academia, and it’s not as good." While I agree corporate heads are probably worse than they were before, this particular trend is probably a result of changes in market conditions. Stockholders are too impatient for long-term results, and there's always free-rider problems associated with capturing the fruits of research.

A. Zarkov wrote, "In the 1970s 70% of the published research papers came from industrial labs. Today the figure is 7%. Most everything comes from academia, and it’s not as good."

70% as measured how, over what fields?

Academic research tends to be more "pure," so the payoff from any particular line of research is lower.

Note that almost ever single breakthrough in the science of molecular biology was conducted on the public dime.

"A. Zarkov wrote, "howard: I don’t notice Patrick engaging in the kind of vitriol that is directed against him. If I missed it, please point it out to me." That's because you don't know Patrick well enough. He's known on USENET's sci.econ for being particularly despicable."

One may not learn many facts by reading SDJ, but you certainly learn a lot about psychology.

Wow. Forget the wheelbarrow, I'm renting a dumptruck. My roses are gonna be 20 feet tall by the time Patrick is through. If all of this doesn't kill them.

"One may not learn many facts by reading SDJ, but you certainly learn a lot about psychology."

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 30, 2004 06:52 AM

Does anybody know if there's a law which actually *requires* right-wingers to be poster children for Freudian projection, or if it's just the nature of the beast?

Which military records did Kerry withhold? Few or none, IIRC. I think that you're harping on an obsolete talking point.

Not releasing one's tax return or medical records is something rather different than refusing to answer a yes or now question about drug use. As often in these arguments, the significance of his non-answer lies in the fact that his campaign depends totally on the votes of pious suckers who would never vote for a known drug-user.

zizka - regarding Kerry's refusal to fully release his military records, there's this article from the Boston Globe. Note that he flip-flopped on the issue.

"Kerry refuses to release more records
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | April 20, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.

Kerry, in an interview Sunday on NBC's 'Meet The Press,' was asked whether he would follow President Bush's example and release all of his military records. 'I have," Kerry said. "I've shown them -- they're available for you to come and look at.' He added that 'people can come and see them at headquarters.'

But when a reporter showed up yesterday morning to review the documents, the campaign staff declined, saying all requests must go through the press spokesman, Michael Meehan. Late yesterday, Meehan said the only records available would be those already released to this newspaper

For the entire article, see http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/04/20/kerry_refuses_to_release_more_records/

Another article pointed out that Kerry could easily authorize release of his entire military records by filling out a simple form.

A. Zarkov, we're talking about different things: the vitriol that Patrick directs is at Kerry in his attempt to trivilize actual military service and medals. Given Patrick's consistent misrepresentations (he couldn't recount correctly a situation where he got something right in a back-and-forth with me), it's hard (even for those of us with a lot of patience) not to get annoyed at the guy.

As for Bush, take a look at his record on drug laws while governor of Texas; i don't have the time to track it down now, but he's not just an innocent bystander in the drug war hysteria.

As for '70s CEOs, i'd be curious about your cite about published research papers, although i don't disagree that american industry has neglected research (we could go on a long time why that is). But '70s-era CEOs were the height of imperial, ill-informed, command-and-control leadership. Incompetent CEOs are much more likely to be identified and tossed out today, and, much like the military (although much more slowly), the gradual withering away of barriers to advancement of women, people of color, and other formerly restricted groups has, of course, improved the talent pool tremendously....

David, to the best of my knowledge, the Kerry campaign has provided exactly the same access as the Bush campaign. Do you know differently? (You aren't, after all, going to claim that Bush, despite promising to release all of his records, has done so?)

"Which military records did Kerry withhold? Few or none, IIRC."

You don't remember correctly. Kerry's got a huge, unexplained, hole in his military service. According to his enlistment contract he should have been serving in the ready reserve (week-end warrior) in 1970 and 1971. Obviously--his haircut at the time--he didn't.

His official biography--last I looked--lists his service as being from 1966-70 AND from 1972-78! But his enlistment contract would have called for his to earn his discharge in '72 or '73. No explanation has ever been given for this odd chronology.

"Given Patrick's consistent misrepresentations (he couldn't recount correctly a situation where he got something right in a back-and-forth with me), it's hard (even for those of us with a lot of patience) not to get annoyed at the guy."

Let me say that I positively luuuuvvv it when howard can't get elementary facts right. As he characteristically did not when he said (in reference to my):

" 'This is as accurate as your claims that Bill Clinton didn't confuse Scalia with Justice Kennedy.'

"First, you meant to say Bork, not Kennedy. "

No, howard, I never made such a foolish mistake, and I didn't need to search Brad's archives to know that. It is a simple matter of *reasoning*. Bill Clinton did not confuse Scalia with Bork. Clinton clearly knew they were different people. But it was Anthony Kennedy, NOT SCALIA, who eventually took the seat for which Bork was not confirmed.

All of which I find hilarious, and it doesn't annoy me in the least. In fact, I hope you keep up the pratfalls. And, I'm sure you will.

As to this:

"A. Zarkov, we're talking about different things: the vitriol that Patrick directs is at Kerry in his attempt to trivilize actual military service and medals."

Please point out the "vitriol" I've directed at Kerry. You'll be every bit as successful in doing that as you were at impeaching what I said about Bill Clinton's confusion.

Howard - Bush signed the form authorizing the release of all military records. His remaining records were released about a week ago. I've not heard that they contained anything of significance.

Kerry didn't sign the form authorizing the release of all his military records, even though he had said on Meet the Press that he would release them all (or that he already had).

I was reading _Goedel, Escher, Bach_ and Hofstadter had some things to say about real computers vs. human chess masters (who were, when GEB was written, well of the computers). He said computers examined and weighed every possible course into the future, whereas not only do human chess masters not look futher into the game than ordinary chess players: they see fewer moves. It isn't that they see bad moves and reject them, like most of us: they simply don't see moves other than good ones.

Bush is like an anti-chess master: he doesn't analyse every move: he just sees the bad ones and chooses among those. Kerry, on the other hand, seems to think more like a computer or a conventional chess player.

I, by no means, have great admiration or intense trust in the Bush administration, but I don't understand the position that most liberals/democratic citizens are taking. It seems that Kerry is the best candidate becauses he's NOT Bush. It seems that