I would be grateful if you could point me to your source regarding France’s betraying the United States’ plan of attack on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. I hadn’t heard this before reading your post and I would be a little surprised if it were true, but perhaps I just missed it.

When the Taliban announced that Hindu’s would be required to wear an identity label, everyone immediately made the connection to the Star of David that Jews were required to wear under the Nazi regime. Lots was written on the subject.

More generally, I received an email in which someone pointed out that I ought to be putting forth reasons why someone ought to vote for Kerry instead of saying why they shouldn’t vote for Bush. This line of thinking makes some sense–you have to believe that the alternative will be better than your other choices, and I think the criticism that Kerry has failed to articulate a cogent message as to how he differs from Bush in terms of providing national security is a fair one. Kerry has said that he would pursue a more international approach. I don’t particularly relish the prospect of shouldering the financial and military burden alone against what is sure to be a long struggle. Of course there are times when America may have to break with our traditional allies to secure our national security, but for the most part I believe that our interests are aligned. Our allies will balk, and they should balk, when we are using terror as a pretext to advance other national interests.

I believe that a little patience and diplomacy will yield bigger dividends in the war on terror because I believe that at the end of the day this is a war of ideas and we must maintain our moral standing if we are going to win that war. If our system is seen as corrupt, if we are seen as oppressors, if we deny our own citizens due process, if we simply dismis–because they are no longer convenien–treaties that we have insisted others abide by, we will continue to damage our cause. Taken as a whole our ideas will still be better, but they won’t have the power to convince people who didn’t start out thinking that was the case. One of the main reasons we won the Cold War was because it was obvious to everyone in Soviet society that their system and their leadership was corrupt. And it was equally obvious that America had something better to offer. We still have something better to offer, but under the Bush presidency I absolutely believe we are losing our way.

I would be grateful if you could point me to your source regarding France’s betraying the United States’ plan of attack on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. I hadn’t heard this before reading your post and I would be a little surprised if it were true, but perhaps I just missed it.

When the Taliban announced that Hindu’s would be required to wear an identity label, everyone immediately made the connection to the Star of David that Jews were required to wear under the Nazi regime. Lots was written on the subject.

More generally, I received an email in which someone pointed out that I ought to be putting forth reasons why someone ought to vote for Kerry instead of saying why they shouldn’t vote for Bush. This line of thinking makes some sense–you have to believe that the alternative will be better than your other choices, and I think the criticism that Kerry has failed to articulate a cogent message as to how he differs from Bush in terms of providing national security is a fair one. Kerry has said that he would pursue a more international approach. I don’t particularly relish the prospect of shouldering the financial and military burden alone against what is sure to be a long struggle. Of course there are times when America may have to break with our traditional allies to secure our national security, but for the most part I believe that our interests are aligned. Our allies will balk, and they should balk, when we are using terror as a pretext to advance other national interests. I

I believe that a little patience and diplomacy will yield bigger dividends in the war on terror because I believe that at the end of the day this is a war of ideas and we must maintain our moral standing if we are going to win that war. If our system is seen as corrupt, if we are seen as oppressors, if we deny our own citizens due process, if we simply dismiss because they are no longer convenient treaties that we have insisted others abide by–we will continue to damage our cause. Taken as a whole our ideas will still be better, but they won’t have the power to convince people who didn’t start out thinking that was the case. One of the main reasons we won the Cold War was because it was obvious to everyone in Soviet society that their system and their leadership was corrupt. And it was equally obvious that America had something better to offer. We still have something better to offer, but under the Bush presidency I absolutely believe we are losing our way.

One of my favorite columnists. I may have to go buy his book.

I can understand the criticism that the warlords are all still there (well minus the Al-Queda sympathizer caught last week). But did anyone really think the US could by fiat step in and get rid of tribalism?

I’ve been away at a wedding and will be leaving tomorrow for a few weeks of kayaking–but while I have time I’ll respond to what you have written.

At the Republican convention Kerry’s voting record was frequently criticized (Guiliani among others) out of context. People familiar with Washington (and even some such as myself who are not) know that politicians often vote against one version of a bill because they favor a different version–not because they are against the end result. Kerry wanted a different version of the $87 billion dollar appropriation bill because he wanted to pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy rather than through deficit spending (see the Washington Post 9/18/03). Bush threatened to veto the Iraq spending bill if the reconstruction aid for Iraq was in the form of loans rather than grants. So yes, convention speakers were technically correct to say that Kerry opposed the bill, but they knew that he wasn’t opposing money for the Iraq war, just how it was to be delivered. This makes it a bad fact–technically true but intentionally distorted.

I don’t particularly care for you lumping me in with Michael Moore or protestors you may have seen. In fact I consider it a smear so please don’t do it again. If you want to set up straw men you can knock down, don’t make me the straw man. Don’t respond by saying “I didn’t say you were agreeing with Michael Moore’s position–it was a hypo”. I consider that a disingenuous statement. Please make a good faith effort to work with what I write or I’m afraid we can’t have a discussion.