What I call the Bush cycle. Michael Novak sees it in The Corner. Key point:

I have no idea what made the President decide to send Condi to testify this time. But I have seen this move too often to believe it is not a designed play. If it is not, well, it looks like the old game plan, and in any case it has again worked like a charm.

People are wondering if the terrorists could affect the US elections. Sure they could. And it wouldn't take a huge event with a huge a plan. They could change our elections, and change history. It's happened before.

I date the current war between the United States and Islamic fascists to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968. I think most people think of Sirhan Sirhan as a poster child for gun control - he was some nut who was able to get a cheap gun and kill another Kennedy. But Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian who, in his diary, wrote that he would kill Kennedy because he was afraid that he would be too friendly to Israel.

The murder of RFK definitely affected that election. I think probably RFK would have won the nomination, and would have beaten Nixon. Imagine how differently history would have turned out.

I've noticed that when CNN reports on the "traded barbs" line, they always say "Kerry criticized" or "Kerry blasted," but for the GOP, it is the "the President claims" and "the Vice President accused."

But they can't hold the spin forever. On the morning show, there was a report about John Kerry's MTV appearance, focusing on this bit:

Kerry: Oh sure. I follow and I'm interested. I don't always like, but I'm interested. I mean, I never was into heavy metal. I didn't really like it. I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important.

The young lady presenter just laughed.

I think I know why the President won't just come out an admit he was wrong about WMD in Iraq.

Could just just be that he wasn't. That's all I'm saying.

In Miami, lots of people wear sunglasses at night.

People drive Ferraris to a crab shack.

And Rolls Royces to sushi bars.

Okay, that part only in South Beach.

Lileks wrote a piece about New York and Times Square before (I'll dig up a link at some point) and how Times Square has lost a lot now that it is cleaned up. It always amazed me that New Yorkers hated Times Square with Barnes & Noble more than they did the sex shops. Times Square was rough country. Now you can go there.

But I kind of understand it, now. I drove through the Deco area - I really like Deco - and the first part that I saw had that great architecture, but also I was a bit disappointed to see the same old stores in those buildings. Banana Republic, Gap, etc. As I went further down, though, some original occupants, particularly the hotels, stood out, unhomogenized. I suppose that it is possible that without those generic occupants, those buildings might have been torn down, or would be in disrepair, so it may be a very good thing they are there. But I can understand - a little, anyway - New Yorkers' nostalgia for grimy old Times Square.

You enter the ring against your opponent who has risen through the ranks to face you. You circle. You throw an exploratory jab. Your opponent collapses, bleeding badly, only to crawl to the corner for a rest, bashing his teeth out on the corner post as he makes it there.

If that happened, what would you do? You would be confused. As I think the Bush team is.

Kerry came out, The Administration hit him with some decent adds, and Kerry spent the next two weeks self-immolating. It's amazing. His handling of his vote on the $87B was atrocious, his handling of his senatorial record is worse, and when he was attacked as a thin skinned liberal who wanted to raise your taxes, Kerry showed remarkable stupidity in proving via denial, the charge. And then there was that moronic statement about the secret service agent.

Most of my buddies on the left think that Rove and company are not doing that great of a job, and I somewhat agree. But I think they are nonplussed about Kerry. Mainly because I think decision is this. Do you utterly destroy Kerry right now, do you back off, or do you give him a slow death?

If you kill him right now, there is a chance that the Democrats will nominate someone else, and then you have spent good money for nothing. Also, you may come off badly to the public. People enjoy a good contest, but not a beating.

If you back off, you give the guy a second chance, something that may not be wise tactically.

Giving him a slow death splits the difference, but again that may make you look bad, and give Kerry another shot all at once.

So what would you do?

I don't know, but once again I am amazed at how inept the Democrats have become at the game of politics. I have always considered them the equals, if not superior to the Republicans in political skill, risk assesment, spin and message discipline. But right now, they are horrible. All the pro's are silent. No Gephardt, Daschle or Clinton on the radar, except for that atrocious event. It would confuse the crap out of me too.

I also know that the Democrats will utterly deny this, and state that they think Kerry is holding his own with Bush. The polls say something very different. And once again this shows that utter inability of the Democrats to objectively view the situation.

Yesterday I was watching Fox News Channel, and there was an interview with John Loftus, which was a regular analyst spot on Sunday mornings. I've heard Loftus on the radio before - he seems to be a one-man DEBKA file. Astounding revelations, sketchily sourced. His website doesn't shed any light.

The starting point of the interview was some recently released information that came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - that AQ intended to attack Heathrow Airport just after 9/11. Loftus added that the CIA had obtained an AQ memo that they called the "Domino Theory Memo," that laid out a political plan to isolate the US from its allies by attackign them, starting with Spain.

I am skeptical of Loftus, and this memo seems a little too convenient, as well as outlining a level of political sophistication about the West that I wouldn't ascribe to AQ. However, if it is true, this would mean that this war is a lot bigger in scope than it seems. Bob Novak wrote a column last week that said that AQ had changed over to an overtly political strategy.

I am still skeptical of the whole thing, but it is definitely food for thought.

Miami.

Work has me travelling again. Last week, Biloxi, Mississippi. My observation: Just because a place has casinos, it doesn't mean that it is glamorous.

Hamas said that they would exact revenge on the US because Israel killed Sheikh Yassin. That would be the same Hamas that Saddam Hussein openly supported with money and arms.

Anyone see where I am going with this?

P.S. - would any of you "secular Saddam could never ever work with religious bin Laden" folks tell me why secular Saddam sent checks that religious Hamas was proud to cash? I have never, ever gotten an answer to that question. Thanks.

From Instapundit:

work as a freelancer for a major national publication, and was talking to my editor as we were closing a piece last week. It was Thursday, and the reports were coming out of Pakistan that we might have Ayman al-Zawahiri surrounded. I passed this news on to the editor, who was crestfallen: "Oh, no. I don't want anything good to happen for Bush before the election," was the reaction (P.S., this editor does not edit foreign or political stories).

It was a sickening moment. This is a man responsible for thousands of American deaths. So while I have no desire to see Bush re-elected, and I disagree with our attack on Iraq, to hope for our failure in capturing one of the deadliest people in the world is a moral blindspot.

Tolja.

Just a gut feel from the way things are going, but I think something is about to change, or has just changed, in the war on terror. Perhaps the attack in Spain is yet another major miscalculation of cause and effect, maybe US polling data is affecting things, or maybe it is just coincidence. But I think that Michael Ledeen is about to get his "Faster, please."

I noted before that President Bush made an almost explicit threat to Syria and Israel. We've got the spring offensive going on, and if it didn't get Zawihiri, it did get hundreds of AQ types, and put that region on notice. And then the killing of Sheikh Yassin. I have been saying since about 9/12/01 that one outcome of the WTC attack is that the Arab-Israeli situation will get resolved, and I would think that it won't come out well for the people who danced in the street with joy at our misery. Arafat is scared, and he should be. And if Hamas thinks that attacking the US is a good idea, well, go ahead, make my day.

I am thinking that perhaps the President has decided to say "Damn the torpedoes." Or maybe that is just wishful thinking. But something is definitely up.

It says on Fox:

He added: "One shudders to think what additional errors (Bush) will make in the next four years to strengthen the Al Qaeda follow-ons: attacking Syria or Iran, undermining the Saudi regime without a plan for a successor state?"

We can only hope!

Splash, over.

Splash, out.

Dang that Allah with his no hotlinking! Fixed it, though!

Another Drudge headline: Al-Qaida No. 2: We Have Briefcase Nukes.

Again, news? What about this article from October, 2002? In that one, AQ got 20 suitcase nukes for $30M.

For the Democrats to recognize that alliances are two-way, and call on our European allies to be allies? They could still stick it to Bush and say "despite our cowboy President blah blah blah, but the future is too important, why don't you guys support us because success is too important to let our alliances fall by the wayside?"

Of course, the Democrats want failure, and they will always paint the US as the bad guy. So I guess that won't happen.

During the Democratic primaries, I had some respect for Joe Lieberman for being true to himself in the same way he wasn't true to himself while campaigning as Al Gore's VP candidate. He wroted an op-ed that was in the Washington Post yesterday, encouraging the US that this was a "Time for Solidarity with Europe." Here's a thought - maybe it is time for Europe to be in solidarity with us? I guess that is too much to ask.

At any rate, I came across this part and about blew a gasket:

I understand the Europeans' unease over American power and their anger at the one-sided ways the Bush administration has exercised that power. For example, when the Europeans invoked Article V of the NATO charter after Sept. 11 and pledged to send their troops to fight alongside ours in Afghanistan, the Bush administration rejected the offer and chose to go it alone. That was a mistake, and it sent an offensive and divisive message to our European allies.

Joe Lieberman is a lying sack. Didn't European crewed AWACS planes patrol US skies after 9/11? Isn't it true that the French were unable or unwilling to participate in Afghanistan until after the conflict was mostly due to their own internal politics?

Maybe I can start a satirical Op-Ed corrections page for the Post and get a cease and desist letter. That should drive up traffic!

On the top at the Drudge Report, a story about how the former White House anti-terrorism chief (a Clinton holdover) is "breaking his silence" and going on 60 Minutes:

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.

Why is this news? Has anyone read Bush at War by Bob Woodward? This is page 49 of the paperback:

Published November 19, 2002.

President Bush is out on the trail, and he's making some good speeches. Here is an interesting excerpt from a speech at Ft. Campbell, KY:

A year ago, Iraq was ruled by the whims of one cruel man. Today, Iraq has a new interim law that guarantees basic rights for all: freedom of religion, the right to cast a secret ballot, and equality under the law. And these historic changes are sending a message across the region from Damascus to Tehran: Freedom is the future of every nation.

The plan for the GWOT is to foster democracy throughout the Muslim world. Yet the Presdient mentions just 2 capitals, and they don't bound the Muslim world - but they are neighbors of Iraq.

A country where we just happen to have one hundred thousand fresh troops. Perhaps it is just coincidence that the people are rising up against those regimes right now.

Perhaps not.

After a near unified expression of dismay at the Spanish reaction to the bombings in Madrid, the Left is returning to form. How could they possibly criticize a guy who dislikes Bush and thinks Iraq is a disaster? And a Socialist to boot? So now they are trotting out the "90% of Spaniards did not support Iraq" story line - even though the PP was well ahead in the polls prior to the bombing, even with that - and the "Aznar lied about ETA" story line, which has some amount of truth, but does not excuse the surrender to the terrorists. I mean, even John Kerry is saying that they shouldn't leave Iraq.

But what is Zapatero about in his position that Iraq is a disaster, and pulling out the Spanish troops? He says that the Spanish troops will leave by June 30 - unless the UN takes command of the operation. In other words, Zapatero is not standing on principled opposition to war, or the war - he is just anti-American. No wonder John Kerry has decided he doesn't want foreign leader endorsements, now.

I was working at home today, so I heard the famous Kerry for and against the $87B quote on radio many times. If you haven't heard it yet, click here.

If during the next elections in France we fly some B-52's over and bomb the trainyards of Paris, will they swing our way? Just wondering.

Where I saw Blix was on Hardball with Chris Matthews. It just hit me, something he said to Blix. He was pushing some thoughts that he wanted him to agree with, and one thing he said, was that things were better now in Iraq, but that was bad, in a way. It was bad if Iraq worked, because then that would mean that the neocons in the Administration would think they had done the right thing.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - the Democrats have to hope for the US to lose. What a horrible place to be. I'd like to get Matthews to take my quiz below.

Hans Blix, pushing his book on various TV shows, is peddling the story that if he had just been given 4 or 5 more months, he could have proven that Saddam Hussein had no WMD. And that we could have avoided the war.

So, let's see. Blix comes up with proof that there are no WMD, Hussein is left in power and the sanctions are dropped.

This is good how?

The new Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero stated "We're aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration." (Source)

And the EU reacts thusly.

"The European Union (news - web sites) appeared to back away Tuesday from calls for new institutions to fight terrorism after the Madrid bombings, stressing instead the need to implement agreed measures and share information."

So instead of "appointing a single EU counter-terrorism Czar," the EU will instead deal with pressing issues like a "common definition of terrorism, harmonized sentences for terrorist acts and more moves to cut off terror financing." Apparently these are only some of the "raft of measures proposed in the aftermath of September 11 that member states had either failed to implement or not yet enacted."

As a "senior European Parliament leader, Graham Watson of the centrist Liberal Democrats, told a news conference: "The most important things we can do are getting police forces working together, our judicial authorities working together and perhaps most importantly getting our intelligence services working together.""

Folks, the only way that (Old) Europe is going to get it is a square kick in the teeth in which thousands die. And even then, I am not that hopeful.

If our American brethren elect Senator Kerry, we can expect Kerry "to implement a plan to combat terrorism that relies on stronger intelligence-gathering, law enforcement and international alliances."

In the meantime, Kerry has been caught out in the lie about foreign leaders endorsing him. If the fundamental lack of judgment shown by this particular action escapes you, then there is no helping you.

In short, for the first time in a long time, I am worried.

A question for the Democrats. It's Halloween. The polls show George Bush a few points ahead in the polls. Would you want al Qaeda to attack?

"Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorists attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right (to pursue attacks)," Prime Minister Leszek Miller told a news conference in the Polish town of Tarnow.

Link via uBlog.

And people said Rumsfeld was bad for saying that "New Europe" was good.

Yes, the elections in Spain were democracy in action. And, yes, the result must hearten Islamo-fascists in their quest.

But I don't think this is what the terrorists intended. Just as in 9/11, I believe that they are surprised by the extent of what they wrought. I think the terrorists meant to kill people - I don't think they meant to bring about a Socialist victory.

But now that they we have told them they scored a success, I expect there will be more attempts. I don't know that there will be more successes, but, again, as in 9/11, the more things they try, the more chances that one happens.

Now, more than ever, we must be taking the fight to the terrorists. Madrid was the first big event outside of the Muslim world since 9/11. Let it be the last.

Sincerely, sorrow for your loss.

Sincerely, thank you for your support.

Sincerely, nice knowing you.

I hope that appeasement thing works out, but, it never does.

I read a post over at Jeff Jarvis and an interesting thought occurred to me.

Would you consider it offensive for people to be able to buy debris from the WTC and Pentagon site? Even the Pennsylvania site?

1) The items would be sold at cost. This removes the profit motive. Although I am not against profit per se, I do not want to discuss it in this post.

2) Disregard the enviromental and health concerns.

This solely deals with the philosophical justification for wanting to own a piece of that history. I want a piece so that I can remember. My current item to remember that day is the video shot by those French Brothers.

This way we can all remember.

Mickey Kaus starts down the conspiracy avenue with the "Unspeakable political angle" on the bombings (in the pieces headed Bombs, Ballots). Who benefits, politically, from the bombing in Madrid. And suggests to Kerry boosters to start spinning a future terrorist attack on the US as a failure of the President to make us safer.

Nice. But there are a lot of problems with this line of thought. First of all, the terrorists have not been spectacularly insightful about the consequences of their actions. Remember, 9/11 was supposed to start the uprising of the Muslims and drive the US out of the Middle East. That wasn't exactly what happened. It also assumes that the terrorists can act when and where they want to. They no longer have the initiative. Plus, it puts Kerry boosters (and Kaus is not one, but one assumes that he wants Bush out of the White House) in the uncomfortable position of wanting a terrorist attack on US soil. And then there is the chance that it would backfire - if they push the line that another attack proves us to be less safe, and then an attack doesn't happen, doesn't it mean we really are safer?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. In this election, the Democrats must hope that things get worse. The economy doesn't get better, and we lose the war on terror. A candidate for President betting against the US - that's a bad place to be.

During the furst Gulf War, I was stationed in Italy. During the buildup, the Italian people were very anti-war, and would protest at the front gate of the American base in Vicenza. Just before the war started, there were well over a hundred picketers out there. The Italian government, however, was very supportive. They allowed overflight and transshipments, and provided troops for base security.

In the first hours of the war, several pilots were shot down, and appeared on TV as POW's, with bruised faces. One of those pilots was Italian, and was from the Veneto region.

The next weekend, there were 2 protestors. And suddenly the people were very supportive - I would get a thumbs up and hear "Saddam kaput!" when I was out in the town.

Just a story from the near past, lest we forget.

3/11/2004. A massive bombing in Madrid. 200 killed, over a thousand injured. The Spaniards are our friends, our allies in this war on terror.

And remember this: John Kerry called them a fraud.

It is still not quite clear who was behind this bombing, but signs point away from the usual ETA suspects. There was a copy of the Washington Post in the lobby of the Spanish embassy, turned open to this page:

President Bush issued this statement:

Today I spoke to His Majesty the King of Spain -- Jose Maria Aznar, as well -- about our country's deepest sympathies toward those who lost their life as a result of terrorist bombings in Spain. I told him we weep with the families. We stand strongly with the people of Spain. I appreciate so very much the Spanish government's fight against terror, their resolute stand against terrorist organizations like the ETA. The United States stands with them. Today we ask God's blessings on those who suffer in the -- in the great country of Spain.

Friends, not frauds. We are with you.

I have a hard and fast rule to never vote for a graduate of the Naval Academy. Sure, its a little bit about rivalry, but there are empirical reasons, too. Jimmy Carter. Ross Perot. Oliver North. And John McCain.

Yes, the Republican John McCain who said he would "entertain" the idea of being John Kerry's VP. Now, the "mainstream" press is obviously playing this up more than its worth, because McCain did stress that it was highly unlikely that such a thing would come to pass. But over in The Corner, they doth protest too much - and I heard Sean Hannity declaring that Senator McCain is a "good Republican" and really the story is being overblown by the press.

McCain's pointing to the unlikeliness, though, is McCain being too clever and playing to his press friends. Oh, no they wouldn't pick me because I am pro-life, a deficit hawk, blah blah blah. He could have said something like "I respect my colleague Senator Kerry and obviously admire his service to our country in Vietnam, but I would have to respectfully decline, as I would not run against my party and don't agree with his approach or his policies."

So even if the press is overplaying it, McCain chose his own self-aggrandizement over his party's President, and has done damage by it.

So never, ever, vote for a Naval Academy graduate. (Equal time, with Wesley Clark and Jack Reed, think real hard before voting for a USMA grad, too.)

In today's Washington Post, a story (registration required) about the Department of Energy Bomb Squad, the Nuclear Emergency Support Team, or NEST. A story of interest to me because I did a major exercise with NEST in my former life. The point of the story seems to be that NEST needs more money. The money paragraph, literally:

Supporters of the teams, and some independent analysts, say all is not well with NEST and its affiliated programs. Aircraft and other equipment are degrading, according to people with knowledge of the program. And as long ago as 1996, experts warned DOE of a growing talent shortage in the programs because of retirements of nuclear scientists that accompanied the downsizing of the nuclear weapons program after the Cold War.

That's alarming! Here we are with a war on terror and fears of dirty bombs and yet we let the program designed to help with that languish!

I thought, hey, I have the skills for this, and I would love to be working some anti-terrorist gig right now, why don't I see if they are hiring people? Going to the DOE Jobs Website, none of the jobs listed are for NEST. Hmmm. Why the big article in the Post, then? Is this a directed leak, attempting to put a request for more money in front of Washington, DC readers? Or is it somehting real? If we are indeed shortchanging the NEST, that should be a huge story, not in the back pages, right?

In the Mediterranean. Two of our most steadfast allies in the war on terror generally and the war in Iraq particularly have been Spain and Italy. Now, another Mediterranean country has elected a conservative government - Greece. That is a big deal, actually, as Greece has under its Socialist governments been significantly anti-American. Now, if only France got on board.

Look at how they handle a debate on campus intelectual diversity?

With kindness, openness, understanding, their arguments bereft of stereotypes, ad hominems, and