You say: "I don't think that Michael's posters are likely to go out and shoot the Democratic nominee; but their refusal to consider the good faith of their political opponents marks a significant failure of the faith required for any republican system of government to survive."

I think the obsession with bringing down Bush and Blair over the question of intelligence shortcomings, whatever the moral or strategic case for the Iraq war, shows a loss of that good faith in American poitics. That is the reason to be despondent: these are times when
short-term political gain has become the single driving motive, even at the price of undermining a war for the nation's survival. This opens the vista of a dangerous and poisoned interregnum.

Mr. Olmsted:

I think that you are drawing both too stark a choice (would violence be justified to prevent so-and-so from winning the White House?), while at the same time, suggesting that individuals don't matter.

I don't believe that the use of violence is justified in a democratic system. (Or republican, if you want to be pedantic about it.) The point of rule-by-law is rule by law, and if that means that there are bad consequences that sometimes occur, well, that's the price you pay for civilization.

But neither am I so sanguine as to believe that, ultimately, the choice doesn't matter.

To take a World War II example, is one really to believe that electing Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 versus, say, a Burton K. Wheeler, would have made no difference? Lord Halifax vice Winston Churchill?

Or, in the Cold War, that reelecting Jimmy Carter would have had no substantial difference from Ronald Reagan?

In neither instance would violence have been justified to alter the outcome, but in neither instance would the consequences have been minor, either.

I think that a John Kerry who views the situation as fundamentally manageable by "law enforcement-plus" in the War on Terror will have substantial impact on its course. Will it doom the Republic? Probably not---but it may well make the road longer and harder, the price steeper.

Dave,

I think that the win-at-all-costs mentality that seems to dominate both major parties certainly adds to this problem. In order to try and boost voter participation by their members, both sides screech incoherently about how their opponent will cause doom and horror to descend on the country, etc. But it seems like some people take that rhetoric entirely too seriously.

Dean,

I'm not sure I follow you, as I don't recall saying that who wins in November will have no effect on the future of the country. Surely there will be differences under a President Kerry than under President Bush. I think that individuals do matter, very much. But I don't think that the decision to elect Kerry this fall will lead to the collapse of the American experiment or Western civilization. It may certainly be a break for terrorists, or it may be the worst thing that could happen to them. How a man campaigns generally has little to do with how he governs, after all: who would have believed where George Bush has us after three years?

I dunno where you live, but I live within fallout distance two major ports and I've already had Anthrax in my mail (or not, anyway, they decontaminated the stuff and then sent it to me in little plastic baggies), and for me the outcome of this election likely is life or death.

I have no compunction whatsoever in predicting that if a Democrat gets elected, it will be seen as both a weakness and a retreat and that his mettle will be tested by immediatly another terrorist attack meant to cause mass casualties, mass fear and mass uncertainty.

The easiest way to do that now is to sneak a nuke on a container ship and float it into a port and set it off.

Just think about the results of that, and what it would mean for our civilization in general.

"The easiest way to do that now is to sneak a nuke on a container ship and float it into a port and set it off."

That there are those who wish to do this is beyond doubt. That they would wait until a Democrat is elected President to do it is not.

Have you noticed, Eric, the Democratic efforts to pass bills putting more money and effort into port security, which the Administration and Republican leadership have put the kibosh on? Have you noticed that the new Bush budget cuts money for first responders? Why do you feel this makes you safer?

Incidentally, the "easiest way" to cause a significant terrorist event in the US is scarcely to sneak a nuclear weapon into a city. There's the minor problem of first obtaining a nuclear weapon. Far easier would be any number of things, such as diving a plane into a nuclear plant, or causing a Liquid Natural Gas tank to explode, or exploding a small dirty bomb (which would cause few deaths, but tremendous inconvenience, terror, and cost to clean up), and so on.

The simplest thing of all would be a string of explosive-belt suicide bombers in large cities. Much terror, only a smattering of people involved at almost no cost, almost impossible to defend against in our society. Just a tad easier than building a nuclear bomb, wouldn't you say?

By the way, very well said, and very admirable, Andrew. I'm a bit weary of my daily intake of multiple rants that I'm a "traitor," half the population of the country are "traitors," traitor, traitor, traitor, traitor, traitor. Even generally sane people like Roger Simon are linking to this sort of stuff these days, and the comment threads of only slightly rabid right-wingers, such as John Cole, are full to the lid with such foaming rants.

It's a tad tiresome, and, as you say, a tad alarming. (And, yes, much of the parallel extremism on the other side is as well.)

Obviously there is no black and white rule that we are safe with Bush and in danger with Kerry.

However, there is good reason to believe that Bush is more likely to take the right steps to protect America than is Kerry, or any other Democrat with the possible exception of Lieberman (who isn't, of course, possible).

A Democrat administration is going to tap into the Democrat "talent pool" for its appointees. And that pool is fairly shallow, since there has been no Democrat with a successful foreign policy since Roosevelt (or perhaps Truman, and although we can't know what would have happened with Kennedy, his choice of defense secretary proved to be an enormous disaster for the country). We are going to have policymakers who have spent their lives thinking about political correctness; policymakers that are automatically inclined to worry deeply about any environmental impact of, for example, military operations; policymakers who have detested the military since their days of avoiding conscription by attending graduate school; policy makers who are more interested in procedural issues than results; policy makers who have long adopted victimology as both a moral compass and a paradigm for understanding the world.

Add to this mix John F. Kerry, a failed legislator with little executive experience, who was on the wrong side of every defense issue he voted on, who in the '90s tried to cut the intelligence budget, who was on both sides of every issue he was called to account for, and who is detested by most current and former military personnel who know about his post-Vietnam behavior.

It is not a pretty picture.

Would Kerry try to defend America? Yes. Would he do it even when required actions would be unpopular? I am afraid my confidence wanes there... Clinton certainly didn't, and it would go against Kerry's lifelong habits. Bush has already demonstrated that he is willing to do so.

Does Kerry have the vision to understand the breadth and depth of the current conflict. No, he has demonstrated that he does not, with his criticisms of the Patriot act which he voted for, his lack of understanding of the strategic aspects of the Iraq war, his tendency (like Clinton) to view terrorism as a problem best solved by police, and his over-confidence on the value of the U.N., either as a moral force or a practical one.

Bush isn't perfect, but it is easy for Democrats to say that he didn't do enough in this area of weakness or that. In fact, much of this is a cynical tactic with no risk, calculated to take advantage of the next terrorist attack. Bush needs to do better in this area, of course. But the fact is that no amount of defensive measures are sufficient. Offense is the only defense in this situation.

John said,

Would Kerry try to defend America? Yes. Would he do it even when required actions would be unpopular? I am afraid my confidence wanes there... Clinton certainly didn't, and it would go against Kerry's lifelong habits. Bush has already demonstrated that he is willing to do so.

Here's my problem with this. I have no confidence or trust in Bush's motives. There's one thing to do something that isn't popular because it's the right thing to do and another to do it for personal or questionable reasons. Plus, a part of being in a Democracy is that when the majority of the people are against something they shouldn't simply be ignored as the Bush administration has done.

I was not against the war in Iraq. I'm still not. I think Saddam did horrible things to his own people and brought a great deal of uncertainty. My concern is twofold. 1. I've seen no forward thinking from the administration as far as a plan to turn the country back over to the Iraqis. Is this because they were unprepared or wanted the money and resources of the rebuilding a country? 2. The administration slowly lost my trust from it's handling of the intelligence and the fallout of finding no WMDs. I was told we went to war because they had WMDs. Now I'm told, we needed to go in anyway because Saddam was a bad person. I've already said I agree with that, but that is not the case they built to go to war. Why? Could it be that it would have been even more unpopular with the people he's supposed to serve?

I disagree that the election is 100% about foreign policy and the safety of our country. What good is being safe if you can't work? What good is being safe when if you do work, you're more terrorized by your employer than Al-Qeada?

I've seen people here and on Micheal Totten's article characterize Kerry as a sleaze. That may be, but I'm not sure I wouldn't use the same term for the current administration. I've found myself wondering how much of the truth they are giving us and how much they hold back to make the spin better for themselves. This is politics. Spin. Spin. Spin. Numbers can be colored to make each side look better or worse. Who do you believe?

Right now, I think more Americans are worse off in their day to day lives than they were three years ago. That reason alone is why I want a new administration in the White House. Odds are until some MAJOR overhauls of how business is done in Washington occurs no matter who you have in the White House, we'll have a certain degree of...well...questionable people and motives.

Politicians change their position quicker than the tides. That's the name of the game. Bush's position had been we need to go into Iraq for the WMDs, now it's we needed to go in because Saddam was mean. How is that not a change in position. Aptly timed I might add.

Right now, I'm still in the lesser of two evils mode. I know I don't trust the current administration, so I'm willing to give just about anyone a chance to do better. I know I will get four more years of poor economy for most people with no end in sight if Bush is reelected. With Kerry or Edwards, I don't know that will happen and I at least have a chance of seeing change in the current situation.

So, at the end of this long winded statement, I'll just say going into this election with blinders on and looking at only one thing doesn't do the country any good. There's more than just war. I trust that 9/11 was a wake up call for all parties (Dems and Reps) and don't think anyone would be quick to back down should an attack occur again.

As for the rest the world. I think you give Bush more credit than the rest of the world. We are viewed as bullies and even tyrants in some parts of the world. Is that a good image? I don't think a Bush defeat would be seen as weakness in this country. Bush wouldn't be the first president to serve only one term. Were we viewed weak when they lost an election?

Oh for Pete's sake,

Please Michelle, please leave the democraticu nderground talking points at home.

- "Terrorized by your employer"? Yes, AQ wants to kill me, rape my wife, and enslave my kids, but damn it, my co-pay for health care has gone up by $5 bucks this year... Sometimes I can't tell my boss apart from Osama...

- Americans are worse off than they were 3 years ago.... I'm not, most people I know aren't, employment is at the level it was during the Clinton golden years, yet we're all supposed to tremble that the sky is falling because W is in the house, and personally siphoning off graft from businesses around the world. Get a clue, the economy is cyclical, and most americans are pretty well off, especially when compared to the rest of the planet... Could it be better? Sure, but name 1 economy that you'd trade places with?

- And finally, the ever tired, whining "they don't like us because we're bullies meme". I can hear the nasal whine in your voice when I read this. Short answer, who cares? I'm sick of hearing about we're bullies. 1) it's simply not true, and 2) if being viewed as a bully scares some folks into behaving (look to Libya for starters) then I say good. the world is a deeply dangerous place, and has been since Og first picked up a stone and heaved it at Thag.

Why should the opinions of a few corrupt, enfeebled socialists has-beens hold any weight on American interest or policy? Of course they don't like us, we stopped the graft coming from Saddam, and the corrupt OIL for Food program that the UN was lining it's pockets with.

These are arguments to make me vote for "anyone but Bush"... Is it any wonder the democratic party is going down the toilet...

I'm not, most people I know aren't, employment is at the level it was during the Clinton golden years,

This is false. Employment is two million jobs below the end of the Clinton years, and we've added hundreds of thousands of people to the workforce since then.

Gary,

If I want to see foaming at the mouth comments, I go to Atrios, TBogg, DU, or Hesiod. After short visits there, I feel like I need rabies shots.

Michelle,

I trust this administration a whole lot more than I trusted the last one. At least I don't have to try to parse and untangle every speech down to the syllable level, only to find out that he didn't say what he meant.

Yes, the intelligence gaps are troubling, but the answers from the CIA have remained remakably stable for the last 12 years: Saddam had WMDs. It isn't like they changed their tune when Bush took office. Clinton and even Kerry in 2002 repeated the mantra.

We just got a President who had enough of a backbone to act decisively.

Kimmit,

The job growth/loss statistics vary widely by source, anywhere from up 500,000 to down the 2,000,000 you claim. Statistics are easy things to lie with, that's why there's an old book "How to Lie With Statistics." Be careful, there.

David,

This is a good point. My problem with the aftermath of discovering the intelligence was poor is that Bush hasn't back tracked. All I needed from him would have been, the intelligence community (not just the CIA) were certain Saddam had WMDs. That has thus far proven untrue. Had I known he didn't have them before the war I may not have gone, but we won't know that. Fact is based on the information we had at the time, I believed the decision to go to war was the right one. That's it...no waffling, no changing to defending. If I knew then what I know now, I may have made a different decision, but I didn't and I made the best decision I could. That's all I needed to have a better feeling about the war and his motives. Instead his reaction is, it doesn't matter we would have gone in regardless.

You're also right that statistics can be molded and manipulated to provide whatever spin they want. As for the previous administration. I don't believe Clinton used his Presidency to further his friends and cronies at the expense of others in the country. But I also think he was the King of politicians. He made decisions based on politics more than anything else. But how many people died because he got it off with Monica or disputed the meaning of is? Stupid yes, destructive...I'm not sure I'd go that far.

While the intelligence community has had a spectacular series of failures over the last 40 years, I don't think the Iraq WMD issue is one of them.

I would like someone to propose how our intelligence COULD have known the true situation, given what David Kay has said about the state of affairs in Iraq. Saddam didn't know what he did or did not have. His scientists didn't know. His generals thought that the adjoining units had chemical weapons ready to go. SIGINT had lots of references to hiding and concealing things. Saddam had WMD's the last time anyone looked. Suspicious things were seen on photo intelligence. And, frankly, we still don't know but what there is a spot in the desert with buried 100 tons of VX, the bodies of the truckers... and who knows, a few more MIGs like were found when the wind blew the sand off of them.

According to Tenet, we had one source deep inside Saddam's councils, and that source didn't know.

Every other intelligence agency in the world though he had WMDs.

Some will assume that Hans Blix's efforts should have told us, but they overlook the incompleteness and utter futility of inspections in a non-cooperative regime. Saddam's behavior was to obstruct the inspectors, while other countries that have gone through the process (e.g. South Africa, the Ukraine) were easily cleared because of their cooperation. Keep in mind that the UN inspectors, in four years of work 1991-1995, never found a clue that Saddam had a massive biological weapons program. It was only the happy chance of the defection of his son-in-law that led to the discovery. So one could hardly put the safety of the nation on Hans Blix's attempt to prove a negative.

Given that, I wonder why we even need an investigation (other than normal intel after-action reports or whatever the spooks call them). We certainly need to find out why they were wrong on 9-11 (although we have a lot of information already). But the Iraq WMD intelligence failure is a great big red herring!

As to Bush giving different reasons for war, keep a couple of things in mind:

1)The media oversimplifies what he and his spokesman said before the war.

2)It is necessary for him to do the same, especially when under such vicious partisan attack.

There are are a number of obvious reasons why Iraq was attacked.

1) Saddam had a history of serious misjudgements, which made him very dangerous. An opponent who can be rationally deterred is better than one who cannot, and Saddam could not be.

2) He had the capacity to quickly restart his WMD programs and we knew that and still know it. The sanctions regime was failing and was about to collapse. After that, he could have easily reconstituted biological and chemical weapons production. It only takes a pesticide plant to make all the chemical weapons you want, and he could have bought the plants. He had laboratories in a number of secret police facilities that were adequate for producing terrorist quantities of biological agents. We were apparently already aware of a black market in nuclear weapons knowledge and equipment, which he could have used to quickly restart his nuclear program.

3) He was trafficking with terrorists, including Al Qaeda (Ansar al Islam for certain, more directly with the core almost certainly). He was providing training and funding to many bands of terrorists.

4) We had to make an example of somebody. Afghanistan was too easy. Taking out Iraq and establishing a large US force on the borders of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia is a pretty strong strategic move.

5) Although I hope this wasn't the primary motivation, there is certainly evidence that his advisors and Bush himself felt a humanitarian urge to end the suffering of Iraqis (some of it a result of his father's policies).

6) A strategic aim in the war on terror is to greatly reduce the number of failed states, especially those with WMD capability or expertise, and hopefully replace them with Democracies. If one looks at the list of Moslem failed states, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Iran are the most significant. Syria holds a WMD deterrent at the throat of Israel. Libya was a possiblity but the casus belli wasn't there. Iran is the worst of those states in exporting terror, but is internally unstable and better threatened with insurrection. Furthermore, an invasion of Iran, which although a nasty Islamic autocracy is still not nearly as brutal as Iraq, could turn the majority who are friendly to the west against us. Iraq was the obvious place to start. And although not a Muslim state, North Korea is a master proliferator, but they hold millions in South Korea and Japan as hostages.

Now imagine trying to get that information through a press corps which has still got the information on "imminent" completely backwards, and you can see why a simple explanation is needed!

Dear Mr. Olmsted:

You write:

But I still can't believe that he, or any of the Democratic contenders, is anything less than sincere in their desire to protect America from future terrorist attacks. We may vary widely on the means, but Republicans, Democrats, and Independents of all stripes are just about universally agreed on the end: preventing future attacks similar to the September 11 attacks.

I wish I could believe this but when poll after poll suggests that Democratic voters do not consider foreign policy the most important question facing voters in the upcoming election you have to wonder. Further, to will the ends you must will the means. I've read every position paper by every Democratic candidate on the subject. They do not appear to will the means which casts doubt on their sincerity in willing the ends. As best as I can tell the alternatives they hold out are

a) it's a law enforcement issue (a failed policy)

or

b) "internationalize" (gain the support of the French--impossible)

or

c) do the same things that GWB has done but do them better (petulant)

Where's the bold new plan from the Democrats? Where's the credible alternative? Please convince me. I need some re-assurance here.

I wonder whether this question isn't being posed at the wrong time. Under the present circumstances it seems likely that the American electorate can still safely choose between Bush and Kerry yet still feel reasonably sure that the Republic will continue to survive. After all, it survived the Civil War and World War 2. But the price of surviving those episodes is one we have not yet begun to approach. It's still 1858 and under those circumstances, there's no call to be extremist. But if a nuke takes out New York, we will be in 1862 all over again and that is when the test of whether reasonable discourse can survive will be met. It all seems so foreordained now, but apparently in those days, no one was sure whether the Republic would survive. Indeed the balance of probability was that it would not.

If an American city is destroyed and John Kerry still thinks we should go for law enforcement plus that will be when the discussion will get interesting.