Like most people, I was a little miffed at Kerry's exploitive reference to Cheney's daughter in the final debate -- especially since Edwards had done the same thing the week before. (The Daily Show skewered Edwards' comments at the time, with Stewart repeating "you've been a good father to your GAAAY DAAAUGHTER," complete with echo.) Cheney took the high road in that exchange, refuses to use his debating time to discuss his daughter, and graciously thanking Edwards for the compliment. But it was crystal clear to anyone watching that Cheney didn't want to bring his daughter into the debate, at all, and Kerry must have recognized that as well. So Kerry's decision to mention Cheney's GAAAY DAAUGHTER was far worse than Edwards, because Kerry should have known better.

Worse yet, Kerry has yet to apologize, instead choosing to flat-out lie about his reasons for the comments:

I love my daughters. They love their daughter. I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with the issue.

What? No he wasn't! That had nothing to do with the question, or his answer. The question was: "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" Kerry's answer: "I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice." Then he went on to talk about gay people trapped in straight marriages for appearance's sake, while ironically restating his firm opposition to gay marriage. But certainly no reasonable person would believe Kerry brought it up to "say something positive" about Cheney's "strong family."

Some bloggers, most notably Andrew Sullivan, have said Kerry's comments would only be a smear if homosexuality was a negative; since it isn't, it was akin to mentioning "another candidate's son in the Marines". But Andrew is missing the larger point here -- that Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter precisely because many voters (especially conservative pro-Bush fans) view it as a negative, and might be less inclined to enthusiastically support a Bush-Cheney ticket. (Imagine if Kerry had a son who was a lead singer in a redneck country band, and Bush and Cheney kept bringing it up because it would be frowned upon by Kerry's elitist base.) The Kerry campaign's concurrent defense that Kerry just picked a random gay person for a point of reference is ludicrous; he could have said Ellen or Rosie or Barney or any other number of openly gay public figures. Who, outside of us political junkies, knew that Mary Cheney was gay before Edwards and Kerry harped on it? The only conclusion is that there was a calculated desire to create a wedge issue between Bush and Cheney, and/or dampen the support of Bush's conservative supporters.

Imagine if the question had been "Do you believe obesity is a choice?" This seems a fair analogy: something that has genetic causes, is not considered a "choice" by the obese, and that shouldn't be frowned upon -- but, like homosexuality, is. What if Kerry had said: "I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is obese, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as." Think about that.

Now, Andrew Sullivan would respond that this analogy is flawed, relying on "equation of gayness with some sort of embarrassing problem or, worse, some kind of affliction". But what fantasy world is he living in where gayness isn't equated with an embarrassing problem or affliction?? OF COURSE IT IS. Whether it should be is irrelevant. Again, the reason the Cheney's are upset is because Kerry brought it up precisely because so many people consider it a negative in the President's party. It is illogical to claim otherwise.

As to the question itself, who's right? Currently, all available medical/scientific studies agree: Bush is. Not that homosexuality isn't a choice, but that we just don't know. Consider the largest study done with 5,000 twins in Australia, showing "in identical male twins, if one was gay the likelihood of his twin being gay was 20 percent." If there was absolutely no genetic cause for homosexuality, then the likelihood would be closer to 3%. But conversely, if it was all genetics, then the likelihood would be closer to 100%. These are 100% gentically identical twins we're talking about, after all. In fact, among identical female twins, there was absolutely no increased likelihood at all of a second twin being gay if the first one is. Even the oft-quoted Northwestern study, which used a smaller sample, showed at most a 50% increase in homosexuality likelihood if an identical twin were gay, again showing that (1) genetics does play some role, and (2) it's not just genetics.

The obesity parallel is a fair one because it's even less likely to be a "choice", but like homosexuality, for better or worse, it's frowned upon. Psychology Today reports:

Identical twins reared together will have the same amount of body fat 75 percent of the time; for those reared apart it's 61 percent, showing a heavy genetic and mild environmental influence, according to a 1991 study.

So if the chance of both identically-gened twins being gay is 20%, and the chance of both identically-gened twins being obese is 60-75%, Bush's "I just don't know" answer on the issue seems valid to me. I certainly don't interpret it as an "anti-gay" comment, and is more reflective of current available scientific data than Kerry's "it's not a choice" blanket.

And, Bush continued:

I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.

Compare that to other prominent Republicans like Alan Keyes calling homosexuality "sefish hedonism", and I'd say Bush is pretty moderate on these matters. Don't forget he also appointed the first openly gay cabinet member, and has increased AIDS research funding by a factor of 10. I disagree with his position on gay marriage, but recognize it stems from societal conservatism, not hate or bigotry. I have yet to find anything Bush says regarding homosexuality to be offensive.

Kerry and Edwards' "Cheney's daughter is a lesbian!" comments are offensive, not because there's anything wrong with Mary's sexuality, but because they only brought it up to exploit the fact that some of Bush's supporters think there is. Andrew Sullivan and others are arguing a moot point in the debate, as if Kerry's motives for the reference weren't transparent. They are. To invoke the sexuality of an opponent's family member, exclusively to damage the reputation of a candidate through the eyes of his base, is sleazy as hell -- and Sullivan should have been among the first to call Kerry out on it.

If there was a single line last night which finally won me over to supporting the President (rather than just opposing Kerry), it was this:

"You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to."

I know, most people would hear that and say "yeah, so what; Kerry believes that too." And I never really thought Bush didn't believe that, of course. But as someone who doesn't believe in God, my greatest reservations on Bush have been with respect to his blending of personal religion with running the country (and world). Tonight, I felt the President's answer, on how his faith guides him, was heartfelt and fair -- and I respected and admired him for it in a way I haven't before. On the other hand, Kerry's continued attempts to "out-faith" the President, repeatedly going on and on about his proud Catholicism, bragging about being an altar boy, constantly quoting scripture, etc... I was turned off by that. (Besides, if Bush had said some of the things Kerry's been saying regarding Catholicism, the left would have a field day screaming Bush was a religious zealot.) And there was more of his vomit-inducing pandering like "Native Americans, who gave me a blessing the other day..." Ick. Even Kerry's line about "what is an article of faith for me," which I liked so much the first time, seemed hollow last night.

Which I guess is the larger issue: Kerry seems hollow and pandering on everything. Kerry's attempts at coming across as "conservative" were more strained than ever, and he appeared neither credible nor trustworthy. Constantly bringing up Republicans you work with rings pretty thin when none of them support you. And amidst all the pandering and convoluted Kerryspeak, I not only didn't hear anything new from the Democratic candidate, but no longer even trust him in issues we agreed on.

In contrast, the President was far more passionate on our nation's most pressing domestic problems, and often was better informed. More importantly, he seemed genuine. Consider some of the topics discussed last night:

Education: Bush brought a lot of questions back to education for good reason -- he is exactly right that education is the key to solving a lot of problems related to poverty, job outsourcing, racism, anything. Kerry just looked lost on these exchanges, because of his fundamental difference of governing philosophy -- Democrats believe the government should help the disadvantaged by throwing money at them to "even the playing field", therefore keeping them weak and dependent on state assistance, whereas Republicans believe government should help people help themselves, by allowing them to break out of being disadvantaged in the first place. I think Bush is right.

Gay Marriage: I disagree, strongly, with the President on this. But Kerry has the same basic position, so I'm not too worried. I'll take Bush's introspective, truthful discussion on this matter over Kerry's crass "yeah, well, Cheney's daughter is a L-E-S-B-I-A-N so there" response.

The Supreme Court and Abortion: Bush said he won't have a litmus test for judges, but would nominate judges who are strict interpreters of the constitution, who may or may not be pro-life (or legislate that way if they were). Probably not what the conservatives wanted to hear, but far better than Kerry's extreme "I will never nominate a justice who is pro-life ever ever" stance, and his equally ridiculous justification for it: "I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right." Where, out of curiosity, in the constitution is abortion guaranteed? Yes, the court in 1973 found a way to use the "right of privacy" clause to force all states to legalize abortion, but even my ultra-pro-choice senior government teacher conceded it was a cheat; by that logic you could demand a constitutional "right of privacy" to beat your wife. (I'd love to see a poll that asks people if they think the right to an abortion is in the constitution.) But the main point voters hopefully took away from the debates is this: Bush is a moderate on abortion issues (his positions shared by about 50% of the country), and Kerry is an extremist (his positions shared by about 10% of the country). I personally trust the moderate.

Illegal Immigrants: Kerry supports amnesty for illegal immigrants who have worked here for years, and reiterated this last night. Bush is a moderate on this issue (which really pisses off his conservative base), but I think his worker card ideas are about the best compromise we can expect these days. The President won this exchange handily -- better informed, with better ideas.

Assault Weapons Ban: Most agree that the ban was pretty pointless, but Bush said he would have signed it anyway if Congress had approved it, which they didn't, so it was moot. Kerry's response to this was filled with the usual flat-out inaccuracies, and at one point, as a defeatjohnjohn reader pointed out, he made no sense at all: "I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, 'See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him.'" Besides the obvious point that, uh, where were they hunting that there was a crack house right behind them, Kerry said this was last year -- when the weapons ban was still in effect!! Doesn't that lend support to the fact that it wasn't working?

Wives and Daughters: Bush's response to this question was beautiful, and from his heart, and I admired the hell out of him for it. Kerry's response was... horrible. All he said was that he was lucky to have "married up" -- not the right choice of words when you divorce a wife worth $300 million for a new wife worth $1 billion. No mention of loving Theresa or his kids. Rather, he changed the subject to a supposed story of his mother, on her death bed, lecturing him to remember "integrity, integrity, integrity." I frankly would like to think my mother would know I had integrity, not needing to use her dying words to remind me. Just, a horrible answer, cementing Kerry in many voter's minds as one of the most unlikable Presidential candidates, ever.

As for the economy, of course, they both parroted their respective talking points, unlikely to convince anyone to switch their current position. If you think Kerry's economic policies will work, he conveyed his arguments pretty well. If you think Bush's economic policies are working, as I (and many economists) do, then you think Bush did the better job. This issue is hard to debate in a time-limited format, because it's all about facts and figures and theories and unknowns. Everyone has to spend some time researching this for themselves.

For undecideds, Bush's best line of the night (and why I think he'll win) was: "A plan is not a litany of complaints." Exactly. Kerry's mortician-delivered uber-pessimism is unattractive in the extreme (maybe he should talk about a "great malaise" while he's at it.) And he doesn't seem to have any original ideas, other than "Bush sucks, and I'm gonna do everything he's doing only, uh, better." Kerry is an empty suit, with neither consistency nor conviction. I don't trust him. At all. Bush, on the other hand, is a leader. He may not be my ideal choice for a leader, and I disagree with him on many issues. But last night, I realized I would be proud to see him up there for four more years. That's why he's getting my vote.

I think the newest and final Swift Vets ad is powerful, poignant, honest, and moving. I'm still not sure how many of their claims are accurate, or whether they helped or hurt discourse this election season. But more than ever, they seem genuine, and this new ad is one hell of a classy way to go out.

After tonight's debate, I am no longer just "anti-Kerry". I am proud to support President Bush for President of the United States.

I bet Bush is wishing he'd saved the foreign policy debate for last, for I suspect tonight's debate will have very high viewership indeed. Everyone knows the stakes: Bush has lost his significant lead over Kerry, and the race is back to the dead heat we saw before the Republican convention. Sure, Bush still leads in the electoral college count, but if he gets re-elected without winning the popular vote again, I don't think he'll be able to govern well. The anti-Bush crowd continues to plunge into absurdist disillusionment, to the point where logic and reason are no longer tools one can use in a friendly discussion. It saddens me to see people I respect and admire reduced to inarticulate hate-filled hysterics, convinced that Bush is both (1) the stupidest man alive who can't even tie his own shoes and (2) a Hitler-inspired ubergenius with plans for world domination.

Tonight's debate will do little to change the minds of the extremists, but for the 5-10% of swing-state undecideds which will decide this election, this is the ballgame. Since neither Bush nor Kerry like to give press conferences or substantive interviews, this may even be the last non-sound-bite moments we have with these two men until Election Day.

Therefore, I offer the following quick list of things Bush and Kerry need to do in order not to blow it.

BUSH		KERRY
General Demeanor / Debate Style
Bush needs to give a repeat performance of the second debate (or better), in which he seems not only Presidential, but in command of facts and figures in addition to his demeanor. An occasional scowl or emotional blow-up is okay, but they should be few and far between, saved for when Kerry says something really outrageous. Bush also has an easy-going, friendly style which Kerry does not, and keeping the tone lighter will benefit his appearance.		Kerry, too, would do well to mimic his Friday performance, but also needs to improve his word-to-point speaking ratio. Whereas Bush is often too terse when you wish he'd elaborate, Kerry is verbose to the point of making the simplest answer convoluted and confusing. Using more words doesn't make Kerry sound smarter -- it makes him sound like he doesn't really know what he's talking about, and so has to fill the space with filler text.
Economy / Jobs / Health Care
According to an Associated Press report this morning, nearly all senior economists agree (including the Economic Policy Institute, Wells Fargo, Global Insight, etc.) that Kerry's economic plans would balloon the deficit. Unforunately, they also showed Bush's plans won't help as much as claimed, either. Bush needs to find a way to spin this so that it's clear Kerry's plans won't work while vowing to tweak his own so they do. Leading economists agree that Kerry can't have both his health care plan and deficit reduction -- he'll have to choose. Bush needs to make this point over and over again while pointing out his lower cost alternatives. Heath care is a hard subject to be on the "spend less money" side, so this is where Bush's "compassionate conservatism" needs to come through.		Kerry used to claim that Bush "lost 3 million jobs". Then it was that Bush "lost 2 million jobs". Then briefly it was that Bush "lost 1 million jobs". The numbers kept changing because the economy kept getting better. As of now, the number of jobs "lost" is around 750,000 and shrinking. So Kerry has tweaked his numbers to count only a loss of private sector jobs (i.e. the 1.6 million he's been quoting) while ignoring all the public sector jobs that cut that figure in half. This is a hard issue for Kerry to sell, for the job growth numbers and unemployment figures are identical or better now than the were under Clinton (when everyone agreed the economy was booming,) and voters understand that 9-11 made a huge dent. Kerry needs to better articulate why Bush's plans would have hurt even if 9-11 hadn't happened.
Stem Cell Research
Bush has defended himself well on this issue so far, but the vast majority of the country still doesn't quite understand his position, especially with Kerry and the DNC actively lying about it every day. Bush needs to reiterate again and again that he did not ban stem cell research, and in fact specifically allowed and encouraged it. He needs to differentiate the three types of stem cell research (adult, umbilical cord, and embryonic), and explain his compromise that allows embryonic stem cell research without allow ing federal funds to be used to destroy additional embryos (labs can still get funding from other sources for this). In a nation morally divided on this topic, Bush's compromise was exactly the right thing to do (even though it wasn't pro-life enough for his conservative base) and he should take credit for it.		Edwards' recent disgraceful, outrageous, insulting, exploitive, and flat-out false statements on stem cell research have really hurt Kerry here (at least among those of us who closely follow this issue; I have juvenile diabetes and was particularly disgusted yesterday). And, Edwards was widely and rightly criticized for it. (For those who missed it, Edwards said "when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.") Kerry absolutely cannot make a similar mistake tonight. Embryonic stem cell research has shown some promise, but it's still a one in a million shot, and again, hasn't been banned or outlawed at all, Kerry's continued lies on the topic aside. Kerry will also do well to avoid silly lines like "I'll be a President who believes in science," which is more of a groaner than a zinger.
Abortion / Gay Marriage
Bush's position on abortion is arguably the most common in the country -- personally pro-life, allowing exceptions for life of the mother, rape, and incest, not actively trying to overturn abortion but wishing to restrict late-term procedures when the fetus is at or near viability, and trying to reduce the total numbers of abortions nationwide. Kerry, on the other hand, despite his rhetoric, is a bit of a pro-abortion fanatic, taking extreme positions on Partial-Birth, waiting periods, and parental notification laws, putting him well out of touch with 75-85% of the nation according to the most recent Gallup polls. Bush especially needs to call Kerry out on his equally extreme call on Friday, to require taxpayers to pay for abortions for the lower classes. As for other social issues such as gay marriage, Bush is probably okay, since such an overwhelming national majority already agrees with him. But Bush could do well to remind independents that he does support gay rights, increased AIDS funding by a factor of 10, appointed the first openly gay cabinet member in history, and has more or less been open-minded on these pretty contentious issues.		Despite nearly every poll taken on the topic, the Democrats continue to assume that the majority of the country is pro-choice, and therefore Bush's relative pro-life stance is the extreme one. If Kerry can continue to paint Bush as a "right-wing extremist" (despite being one of the most moderate presidents of the last century), the independents may side with him. Now, Kerry did very well on the abortion issue during Friday's debate -- explaining that he was, in essence, a pro-life Catholic at the core, with nothing but respect for the pro-life position, stating "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith." (I thought this was a powerful and wonderful line, even though his positions are the exact opposite, since he just got through saying that all Americans, regardless of faith, should pay for abortions for the poor.) Either way, someone needs to ask Kerry why this statement doesn't apply to gay marriage, which Kerry joins Bush in opposition to, and Kerry cannot sound wishy-washy when he defends a civil union compromise.
Education
To Bush's credit, education does seem to be an issue on which he genuinely cares, and he has nearly doubled federal funding for education during his time in office. There is a lot of debate over the "No Child Left Behind" act, especially among teachers (and teacher's unions), not only with regards to the aims of the bill but particularly with regards to its funding. Opponents say that NCLB has only received two thirds of the funding promised, but that's highly misleading -- the authorization clearly stated a legal maximum, not a level of promised funds, which Rod Paige accurately described as a "limiting number . . . a guardrail that keeps wildly spending appropriators from driving the federal budget over the cliff." Bush needs to be far clearer on this point, and point out more examples of the legislation's success.		Kerry is torn here, as he is on so many issues, because he voted in support of No Child Left Behind, and recently reiterated his support for it in the last debate (after months of campaigning against it, of course.) Kerry now says it's great legislation if it would only be funded at "full" levels. I think this is a mistake, because whether it's "fully" funded or not is quite debateable. Instead, Kerry would be wiser to say he wants to increase funding to the maximum because the provisions are too difficult to implement at the levels currently provided by the administration. This is far more accurate, and therefore more persuasive. (Of course, he has to be careful not to continue making huge financial promises while only raising taxes on 1% of the country, and somehow reducing the deficit, too.)
Environmental Issues
Bush did shockingly well on this issue the last debate, simply by sounding coherent, engaged, interested, and able to rattle off half a dozen major environmental accomplishments of his administration. The problem is, most people don't buy it, and take as pretty much a "given" that Republicans are bad for the environment and Democrats are good. Gore somehow was able to paint Bush as single-handedly stopping Kyoto, and it hurt. But Bush needs to remind the public that certain environmental measures, such as the Kyoto treaty, were opposed by not only Kerry, but 100% of U.S. Senators (it failed 95-0). Good environmental policy does not have to come at the expense of our economy, and Bush needs to detail newer, cleaner technologies which will help solve many of our pollution problems in the coming decades.		Since the conventional wisdom is on Kerry's side here, he doesn't have to do much more than shake his head and make a snide comment about not trusting Republicans when it comes to the environment. Carol Moseley Braun had that excellent line about the "Clean Skies" act being a bit of Orwellian doublespeak, and Kerry's been wise to appropriate it. Kerry also needs to point out that even if certain environmental measures have improved, it's been more a result of Bush being dragged kicking and screaming into their acceptance, not genuine leadership on the President's part. Kerry's most impressive line on the environment on Friday was in acknowledging Kyoto was flawed, but could possibly have been fixed, not just hastily abandoned. That strikes me as a very fair point, and may resonate with voters.

The most important thing: more than any time in recent history, both supporters of the President and supporters of the challenger are pretty lukewarm about their respective candidate. Bush needs to convince voters that there's no reason to "change horses in midstream", whereas Kerry needs to offer independents a compelling reason to vote for him, not just against the incumbent. A lot of this may come down to a voter, on election day, simply going with his gut instinct of who he'd rather look at on TV the next four years. Bush has the likability advantage (aside from those who despise him, of course), and if he doesn't blow that, he's got a pretty good shot at reelection after all.

The following article, "Let's get angry: Markos Zuniga writes for The Guardian", is the best Shape of Days posting I've read since his work on the CBS forgeries. An excellent response to that recent, idiotic Markos Zuniga piece in The Guardian. It's scary to think that things are going to get worse in the next few weeks, isn't it?

Sorry to take Monday "off" -- had to get caught up in some other stuff. :) So this morning, I'll share with you an article I wrote in September 2003 for ludicrosity.com, which I stumbled upon recently and thought was worth re-sharing. Obviously, this was written before the chaos in Iraq became worse (note my casual reference to "Ba'athist remnant resistance groups occasionally picking off a couple of U.S. soldiers"), but I don't mind highlighting where I was overly optimistic or when my predictions were incorrect. However, the central points in the article continue to define why I supported the war, and why I believe that Bush's optimism on Iraq, however rose-colored, will help the region more than Kerry's pessimism and inconsistencies have a prayer to.

---

"Why, if Saddam had nothing to hide, did he endure billions of dollars in sanctions and ultimately prompt his own destruction?" This question is asked by reporters Nancy Gibbs and Michael Ware in this week's Time magazine cover story, Chasing a Mirage. Indeed, Saddam's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors was one of the most persuasive arguments that he must have had something to hide. It's what convinced Clinton in the mid-90s, and Hans Blix later on, that WMD programs were still going strong, despite public denials from Baghdad. The inspectors also had evidence of massive amounts of VX gas and anthrax that Iraq admitted it had produced, but insisted it had destroyed, though inexplicably had kept no records of the destruction. To say this seemed unlikely was an understatement -- it would be equivalent to an accused murderer insisting he had proof of an alibi, but had unwisely destroyed all records of it before being questioned by police. Combined with increasingly persuasive CIA and British intelligence, it was hard to find anyone, from any political party, who doubted the existence of illegal Iraqi weapons programs before the war began.

Now, the pieces are coming into place. In part, Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors into the nation (thereby averting sanctions and most likely the recent war) had a lot to do with hiding conventional weapons programs. He was paranoid that the U.N. visits were an excuse for the U.S. to spy on classified military intelligence and their sophisticated new radar equipment. But the more ironic and intriguing reason for Saddam's obstinacy was that his advisors and captains routinely lied to him about creating extensive illegal WMD programs. We now know that many of these programs were scams, that the money was routed to other areas in government (or simply to increase the personal wealth of the corrupt commanders), and that Saddam was given fake updates on the development of illegal weapons that were never, in fact, developed. Some of these documents were unintentionally leaked to U.S. and British intelligence sources, further convincing both governments of the existence of these programs. Since Saddam himself was fooled by these con artists, it's difficult to fault our intelligence sources for falling for the same bogus data. It's a con game plot twist worthy of Matchstick Men, and is historically reminiscent of how our government once intentionally leaked faulty intelligence to the Russians that the "Star Wars" strategic defensive system was far, far more sophisticated than it actually was. Of course, at least Reagan knew the SDI documents were exaggerated; in this case, Saddam was the one who was fooled.

Yes, we'll likely find a few banned weapons eventually, but even if we don't, does it mean, as so many have been led to believe, that the war was a "mistake"? The idea that Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction seems at the very best, a stretch, and at the worst, an irresponsible misrepresentation. His evidence was the same as Clinton's and Blair's and Blix's. Democrats and Republicans alike who saw the data agreed that it was a near certainty that these illegal weapons existed (as well as, ironically, Saddam himself.) The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed. Resolutions were passed requiring certain things of Iraq, Iraq refused to comply, and the actions for non-compliance were carried out on schedule. It was exactly what should have happened.

Imagine if police pull over a man suspected of having drugs in his car. The police ask the gentleman to step out of the vehicle so the car can be searched. The man, believing he does have drugs in his car, freaks out and speeds away. The police now have every reason to be convinced that their suspicions are correct, and chase him down. When they eventually catch him, arrest him, and search the car, they find some drug paraphernalia (an empty pipe, etc.) but no actual narcotics. Does this mean they were wrong to give chase? They asked to inspect for illegal drugs, the man refused to comply, presumably because he thought he did have them, and the police carried out the procedure required of them under such circumstances. It's a pretty big stretch in this case to accuse the police of acting inappropriately, just because it turned out that there weren't any drugs after all.

Ah, but the idea that Bush "lied" is such a great rallying point for the president's opponents, particularly the Democratic presidential contenders. Sure, it defies all logic and reason, since no one has offered any plausible theory as to why on earth Bush would "lie" to have an expensive war which would prove him wrong and get him removed from office, but it just sounds so good in a sound bite, doesn't it? What's worse is that most of the Democratic presidential contenders were strong supporters of the war in Iraq, for the same reason Bush was, until the wind changed and they realized that could get higher polling results if they switched sides. Not exactly a quality that screams "leadership," is it? (Yes, Dean and Braun are exceptions, but they've flip flopped on so many other issues I'll have to tackle them in a different post.)

What no one seems to be paying attention to, especially with the relentlessly negative coverage of Ba'athist remnant resistance groups occasionally picking off a couple of U.S. soldiers, is that Iraq is overwhelmingly better off now than it was under Saddam. Even in Baghdad, the most war-torn and damaged city in the nation, Iraqi citizens say removing Saddam was worth the hardships they've endured by an eight to one margin (67% to 8%). This was the most extensive Gallup polling ever done in the nation and is a fascinating underscore to what recent visitors have said upon visiting the city, that the only people claiming the war wasn't "worth it" are opponents of Bush in this county, not Iraqi citizens most affected by the outcome. (An editorial in the New York Post correctly opines that if the survey had shown Iraqi citizens believing the war wasn't worth it, it would have been on the front page for weeks; since the survey results overwhelmingly supported the U.S. action, however, it naturally got "in other news" status.) The fact that the general sentiment in Iraq is one of gratitude, not hostility, is a big deal. Yes, they're still skeptical that we have their best interests at heart, especially after breaking our promises to those who opposed Saddam after the first Gulf War, abandoning them to torture and death for their disobedience which we encouraged. It's difficult to blame them for being distrustful -- we just need to do a better job convincing the people that our best wishes for them to be able to self-govern is precisely why we haven't left yet, when the situation is still unstable. We made mistakes in 1991 that we can't afford to repeat, and in the long run I believe Iraq will understand the benefits, in hindsight, of our extended stay. The Iraqi citizens are overwhelmingly optimistic about their new Democracy, and once the training wheels are off, they have the ability of becoming the best example of self-government in the region. There is a real chance for Iraq's liberation to be a turning point for that part of the world. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this.

Therefore, the President's opponents, through their sound bites and criticisms, have a very good chance of ending up on the wrong side of history. In ten years, if the democracy in Iraq remains intact and the nation is strong, no one is going to care that we only found a handful of banned weapons instead of the hundreds we were anticipating. No one is going to care about yellowcake uranium or a cowboyish "bring it on" comment or a couple of moderate-sized war protests which got out of hand. This is an historic opportunity for the world to come together and recognize a significant change in an enormous region, and although Bush deserves some of the blame for not convincing the world that he was right, history's judgment will likely be a lot kinder than, say, France's. It is by no means a small deal that the best intelligence in the world was duped by Saddam's sketchy henchmen, and there were some real failures on our end that need to be investigated. But even if one of our main reasons for going to war turned out to be in error, the United Nations would have been negligent in not acting as they did, with the information they had before them. More importantly, if the people most affected by the engagement so overwhelmingly believe the outcome was worth the costs, who are we to deny them their future by lambasting their liberation? Indeed, it's tellingly significant that no one, not even the President's staunchest opponents who want nothing more than to remove Bush from office, have suggested that the world would be better off had we not removed Saddam from his.