Very Good Karol. Keep up the good work. Let us know when it aires.

Eloquence and terrifying simplicity. Well put, Karol.

I am afraid that neither you nor Pres. Bush understands the threat to us, as indicated by this appeal to emotion over reason.

Congrats on the opportunity and your excellent response to it. You offered a reasoned and heart felt statement of why President Bush will get your vote. Bravo.

this appeal to emotion over reason
I guess reason tells us to sit on our ass and pontificate. Kerry is pretty good at that.
It is not excess of brains that makes a modern American "intellectual." It is lack of balls, which is much more fundamental than "emotion." I'm not sure that people who look at the world through the prism of quasi-religious castrated theories can ever understand that.

Very well written Karol. One of the best explanations I've seen on why we had to take the war on terror to Iraq. As for your critics, just remember the words of John Wayne: "Don't let the bastards get you down!"

Karol, in all seriousness, I am disappointed in you. I know that means less than nothing to you, but I thought surely you would have had more integrity than to stoop to such cynical and dishonest emotional manipulation. This in particular I found offensive:

John Kerry is the descendant of the people that looked at the Soviet Union, the country that put my great-grandfather in the gulag where he later died for owning a bakery, that oppressed its citizens and had world domination as a goal, that was evil to its core and corrupt in its nature, and thought that this was a country that we could negotiate with and hope for the best.

And on the more substantive points you make, I agree with Don. President Bush is the one who is still trapped in a cold-war nation-state-based foreign policy weltanschauung, who stopped worrying about Osama once the Taliban was removed from power, and who has consistently ignored the advice and predictions of military and foreign policy advisors who are far wiser than he in favor of listening to crackpots like Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.

It was Bush, not Kerry, who suggested that the way to prevent violent crimes committed with assault weapons was to prosecute, rather than to "preempt" such crimes by making it harder to get those weapons.

As for your point about Kerry wanting to "treat it like a police matter", which part of "we will hunt them down and kill them" did you not understand? Besides, do you think that putting Osama on trial will make him more of a martyr than killing him?

Finally, I'm fairly certain you are aware that it was the U.S. (in fact, it was George H.W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld) who put Saddam in power. So on that level alone, your claim that "Iraq set up the circumstances that allowed hatred and resentment of the United States to breed" is -- at best -- myopic. "Forget the children's prisons, the mass graves, the hands and feet bieng cut off," you say. And yet, those prisons, those graves, those acts of torture -- many of which were committed against fundamentalist Muslims -- were tolerated by the United States for decades, even after the first time the towers were attacked by jihadist terrorists.

Also, while I'm no more qualified than you are to interpret what Osama bin Laden means when he says things, don't you think it is possible that Osama and the millions of other Muslims who hate America are responding not specifically to the build-up of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia in the early nineties but to the long history of American nation-building in "the land of Allah" (i.e., the Middle East generally)? Isn't it possible, even likely, that not only the invasion of Iraq but the complete failure to even pretend that we had the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind may have contributed, in some small way, to the anger and hatred that Osama and his brethren thrive on?

The United States must take responsibility for its part in breeding the hatred and resentment that now fuels the terrorists. That doesn't mean we deserved to get attacked, it just means that we must begin to understand the enemy, and be realistic, rational, and thorough in our approach to defeat the enemy and protect ourselves.

Your party, the same one that tried to call Clinton's attempts to kill bin Laden a "distraction" from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has continuously attacked those who criticize President Bush as traitors and seditionists. Many have even used those words. George Bush practically yelled himself hoarse shouting about how we will never win if we send "mixed messages". You call yourselves, misleadingly, the "Party of Lincoln". Well, a house divided against itself cannot stand. And yet you would add your poison to the stream of hatred and division that, under Bush/Cheney/Rove/Lott, et al., has grown to a point where it threatens to drown us all.

Shame on you.

Very nice effort to analogize between the War in Iraq and our conflict between the Soviet Union. I'd say John Kerry isn't just the figurative descendant of those who advocated conciliation with the Soviet Union, he was one of those people, as a senator in the 80's.

Rick, just for fun, can you cite an example of a Republican calling a Democrat a traitor or seditionist? Not a commentator or private citizen, but an actual politician. Just one. Thanks.

Wow. Karol, I hope you won't waste time responding to Rick's comment that would be better spent electing Pete Coors.

But what I clicked the comment button to say was: One of my friend who works for Roll Call tells me that, believe it or not, Congress is likely to send the "Schwarzenegger Amendment" -- eliminating being born in America as a requirement for the presidency -- to the states for ratification. Overall, I'm not sure yet how I feel about that, but your post is one reason I'm glad about it.

Rick,
You accuse Karol of dishonest manipulation, but don't even bother to explain what's dishonest or manipulative in your writing. The only argument that you present in your self-indulgent, super-sized piece of writing, is "Bush is evil." Your rhetoric is based in the belief that the US is responsible for "breeding the hatred and resentment that now fuels the terrorists," conviniently forgetting that this hatred and resentment is older than the United States itself. I guess that's your way of being "rational and thorough." How very intellectual of you. What a fine example of integrity, too!

And you accuse people of "emotional manipulation?"
There must be something really attractive about your ass that keeps your head in it. I wonder what it is.

Yaron, I am not aware of any "actual politician" using those terms, nor did I say I was. I said Republicans, and was -- as I'm sure you know -- referring to intentionally inflammatory and misleading Republican commentators like Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, who wield their considerable influence without regard for truth, respect, integrity, or the public interest. It is into those lowly and despicable ranks that Karol seems to have descended with her latest foray into the world of "grass roots" politics.

As an aside, when exactly was it that we invaded the Soviet Union to bring an end to the cold war? And which American President is freedom-lover Vladimir Putin's biggest fan?

And Ivan, as just one example of what is dishonest and manipulative in Karol's piece, I refer you to the italicized quote in my first comment. Without even a sense of irony, Karol essentially blames Kerry for killing her grandfather, calling him a "descendant" of those who had the gall to "negotiate and hope for the best" with the Soviet Union. Now, Yaron says Kerry WAS one of those people. I seem to recall another was Ronald Reagan.

But the crowning irony is that while she later blames Iraq (implying that she means Saddam, when in that context she can only mean the US) for "setting up the circumstances" under which 9/11 occurred -- she makes no mention of the fact that George W. Bush is both a figurative and literal descendant of those who not only negotiated with Saddam but propped him up in the first place.

I don't have the time or the energy to properly respond to this. If I did, I'd probably go on longer than Rick, but I am glad he responded.

At this point, I don't know what I can say other than "Dear Lord help us if any sizable percentage of the populace shares your views."

Briefly, your conclusions regarding Kerry are based on God knows what. Other than saying that Kerry is obsessed with his service in Vietnam (which is not really relevant here), I don't see what basis in reality any of your conclusions come from.

Regarding that justification of the Iraq war. OMFG! Even if what you say are legitimate reasons, it would logically follow that we pretty much should be invading half the Middle East -- and we should have invaded N. Korea decades ago. Hell, by this Strangelovian logic, we should have invaded the Soviet Union (maybe that's your point). But Rick is right, it is highly unlikely that it is simply the fact that we have troops that is pissing off Osama, and it is probably broader than what Rick referenced; i.e., Hollywood, western culture, women in short skirts, etc.

Too bad you are in Colorado, I'd invite you to the Film Forum for the one week 40th Anniversary of Dr. Strangelove ... you might learn something.

You can't think that war with Iraq was a good strategy unless you are willing to go farther and argue that we are engaged in a game of Risk in the Middle East.

Are we currently taking Iraq so that we can build up armies and then topple the neighboring terrorist-harboring dictatorships.

If not, the rationale for invading Iraq a country that we now know had NO TIES to al-Qaeda, is a canard. If so, the Billionaires for Bush chant of "Four More Wars" is chillingly accurate.

Karol's essay is equal parts fearmongering and insulting analogy.

Anyone else find yourself banging your head against your computer screen when reading comments on Karol's site more often than when reading any other (applying to comments on both side of the spectrum)?

What would you have Karol write other than her sincere and clearly heartfelt belief in why she's voting for Bush?

Oh lord. My comment has far too much in common with SF's. I assume that he is equally horrified.

With all of the above being said, were you able to bounce your ideas off an actual undecided voter? I think the above is probably a decent representation of the admiration and outrage that much of the right and left would feel respectively after reading it. But is this what undecided voters are actually focusing on? (Even if you believe it should be their focus, it may not be - and probably isn't if they're still undecided...) Guess I am just unsure as to its effectiveness as a tool of persuasion.

Karol:

What is the root cause of terrorism? Is it lack of democracy? If so, why is there an IRA in the UK and an ETA in Spain then?

Anyway, I think Rick Blaine hit all the other points I would like to make.

Not to mention the Freemen's movement right here, Dan.

I appreciate what Karol has to say but I think she made a mistake if she is looking to sway undecided voters. Still, this is for International Public Radio as opposed to National Public Radio.

I think undecideds have made up their minds on both Bush and Kerry when it comes to international affairs and security. I am not so sure that they have made up their minds on a lot of domestic issues.

It is easy to think that terrorism is the big issue in New York or DC. I suspect undecided voters in key areas like Lake City, FL or Marion, OH or Sparks, NV have other more immediate concerns from jobs to finances to taxes to social security to education and so on.

If Bush loses, a lot of blame will be placed on Iraq and some blame will be placed on the domestic front. Both fronts will lead to a restoration of the ancient battlecry of the Republic and the Republicans:

America First.

In the strict sense, yes, Reagan did negotiate and "hope for the best". Everyone always hopes for the best. But Reagan did more than that; he worked to change the situation. The analogy works because in both cases the approach has been to recognize regimes that are toxic and work to destroy them by the best means available.

And yes, there is the element of "Risk" the game to it, because there's a strategic gamble involving many factors, but I think in the case of Iraq to do nothing would have been a much bigger gamble.

That's what is so funny, Von Bek. The places where terrorism would seem to be issue #1 (NYC and LA, as you mentioned) are going to vote OVERWHELMINGLY for Kerry.

Those places that should be primarily concerned about jobs are inexplicably voting for Bush.

I have to admit to being a bit confused about the Soviet Union reference as well. You write:

"John Kerry is the descendant of the people that looked at the Soviet Union, the country that put my great-grandfather in the gulag where he later died for owning a bakery, that oppressed its citizens and had world domination as a goal, that was evil to its core and corrupt in its nature, and thought that this was a country that we could negotiate with and hope for the best. You can not negotiate with people that seek to destroy you."

Ignoring the gulag reference -- a superfluous appeal to emotion -- Rick correctly points out that it is your guy, Ronald Reagan, that gets most of the credit (on the American side of the fence, anyway) for moving the Soviet Union down the path it ultimately took in the early 90s. In further rebuttal, though, doesn't the example of the Soviet Union show that you CAN negotiate with "people that seek to destroy you"? Isn't the United States better off with the FSU of today -- that it helped create -- than the Soviet Union it faced during the Cold War?

Overall, I think you chose a poor analogy in a laudable effort to connect your speech to your personal background. As much mistrust as there was on both sides of the Cold War, nobody (apart from maybe Stalin and some extreme generals in the US and Red Armies) had the stomach for mutually assured destruction that nuclear war would have entailed.

THAT is the difference between the Soviet Union and some of today's terrorists. The terrorists the United States is fighting have absolutely no qualms about killing themselves in their quest to bring down the Great Satan. Note the difference: it's not that they're *willing* to die for their cause, but that they're *killing themselves* for their cause. And that's where true martyrdom lies -- dying for a cause (esp. being killed by the Great Satan) makes much more of a martyr of someone than being put on trial does.

By the way, any chance that "infidels in the land of Allah" might be a reference to Israel?

Asphnxma - Reagan did not negotiate with the Soviet Union in the same way Kerry advocates negotiating with Al Queda. Reagan did not negotiate over stopping Soviet invasions all over the globe. Reagan attempted to negotiate with the Soviets over our stockpiles of nuclear weapons and, as expected, the Soviets balked at all his attempts. When the Soviets did sign some sham treaties, they paid no attention to their mandates and broke the treaties at will. At the same time, the Soviets invaded or sponsored invasions in every corner of the world. We can easily draw a number of parallels between the Soviets and Islamic terrorists. You cannot legitimately negotiate with either, and each seeks to spread its dogma throughout the entire world. The Soviet Union fell not because we "negotiated" it to death, but, in part, because they were scared to death of our Strategic Defense Initiative, and because we fought the Evil Empire wherever it chose to invade(Afghanistan, Central America, South Korea, etc).

I believe Karol is referring to an interview in which Osama spoke of "the Saudi government’s collaboration with the American government in the land of Allah". In that context, it could be Saudi Arabia, as Karol assumes, but could just as easily be Iraq, particularly if Karol is right about the that being the part of the "collaboration" that inflames bin Laden. I think it is less likely to mean Israel in that specific context, but, of course, US support for Israel is one of the many things that causes crazy jihaddists to hate us.

Matt, in what way does Kerry advocate negotiating with al Qaeda?

Dear God, Matt, did you just use Afghanistan to support the wisdom of the Reagan/Bush foreign policy?

I'm so very sorry.

Re: Ugarte's assertion that people more concerned about jobs will 'inexplicably' vote for Bush...

Inexplicably? The best way the government can assist those looking for jobs is to CUT TAXES ON BUSINESS, which encourages expansion. Other than that, there's really little a government can do about joblessness. (Which, by the way, is slightly lower now than it was during the Clinton years.)

For goodness sake, John Kerry actually wants to punish small business owners and RAISE the minimum wage! That's a great way to encourage outsourcing.

JC

Come to think of it, keeping our major financial centers from being destroyed also kinda sorta helps with the whole job thing...

1) By stating Kerry wants to negotiate with Al Queda I was refering to Asphnxma's statement "In further rebuttal, though, doesn't the example of the Soviet Union show that you CAN negotiate with "people that seek to destroy you"?"
2)The Soviet Union sponsored the invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was a terrorist nation. We fought or assisted in fighting the Soviet terrorist insurgencies then just as we fight now to stop the terrorists. Why is is so hard for you, Rick, to grasp the nature of war and the role of the United States in not only protecting ourselves but protecting freedom and liberating the oppressed throughout the world? Do you think that Republican Administrations fight terrorists because we are bored? Republicans fight terrorism to instill the precious WORLD PEACE your side talks about but lacks the will to fight and die for.

Von Bek:

Terrorism is a big issue in NYC. But so are Iraq and other issues. Also, the terrorism issue does not always work in favor of Bush. Some people here believe Bush's policies make us less safe.

I also think that a Bush defeat may not mean the return of America First policies. If Iraq worsens under Kerry, the neocons will argue that the problem was that Kerry was too weak, not that getting into Iraq was a mistake in the first place. The neocon propaganda machine (via News Corp, et.al.) might succeed and we could get a McCain interventionist presidency in 2008.

Matt:

1) Asphnxma is not John Kerry. He does not, to the best of my knowledge, speak for John Kerry. And, I believe asphnxma was referring to Saddam Hussein, not Osama bin Laden. Of course, if you can't tell the difference between asphnxma and John Kerry, I have no hope that you can tell the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

2) You've clearly bought into the whole "everyone who is bad is a terrorist" meme. The Soviet Union was not a "terrorist nation". It was one of two superpowers. What we did is we armed the actual terrorists against the Soviets. Now it turns out that the guys we funded and armed are a bigger threat to us than the USSR ever was. It is not I who has trouble grasping both the nature of war or the definition of "terrorist". And if you truly believe that what we did in Afghanistan was "protecting freedom and liberating the oppressed throughout the world," you are beyond hope.

"Republicans fight terrorism to instill the precious WORLD PEACE your side talks about but lacks the will to fight and die for." Only one candidate for president has shown he is willing to fight and die for his country, and it isn't the Republican one.

Dan:

That is possible but I think the response would be Iraq ruined Bush's numbers. I also suspect that Kerry Justice Department seriously look over the Franklin incident. If that happens, I can see neocon influence be diminished considerably as the media harps on Pollard, Franklin, the role of AIPAC in the Franklin case, Perle leaking, Feith being fired during the Reagan years and so on.

Normally the evangelical right has stood with the neocons. If the above mentioned scenario happened, the theocons may not be in the trenches with the neocons considering the neocons joined the left in the battle over the Gibson film. No, this could get bloody for the neocons.

I never suggested we should negotiate with Al Qaeda, nor that Kerry wants to do that. I was only pointing out why Karol's citation-by-example was flawed. Her reasoning for supporting the war in Iraq included an example of people "you can't negotiate with", when, in fact, history suggests that negotiations with those very people helped foster conditions that led to change. That's all I was trying to say -- I did not draw, nor was I attempting to draw, any parallel along the lines of "we should negotiate with al qaeda".

Rather than slug back blow-for-blow at what I think is a gross revisionist history of the Cold War, Matt, I will say one thing. Your central premise seems to be that the Soviet Union fell apart because the U.S. fought it and because the Soviets were scared of a missile defense system that never was. I submit that the Soviet Union fell apart because: 1) it had an unsustainable economic model; 2) a group of Soviet leaders came to the fore who were willing to change and try something different in the face of the domestic legacy of communism; and 3) (here's where we come in) the U.S. helped foster the willingness to change through negotiations involving its own top political leaders, like Ronald Reagan.

Maybe there's a parallel that can be drawn from that experience to the problems of today's radical Islamic terrorists, maybe not. I doubt that Osama bin Laden is ever willingly going to change his stated goals re: America and Israel, and I'm quite certain we can't "negotiate" with him. However, I do think we need to do more than just "kill terrorists"; we also need to stop people from wanting to become terrorists in the first place. Which man is better for *that* job is, in the end, part of the question -- assuming you believe Kerry when he says he'll hunt down and kill the terrorists.

Ah. And this is why I recommended you! Kudos! : )
No way could I have said it like you do...

Oh, one further addendum:

I think Bush had the best of intentions in Iraq. I really do. I think he truly believed that getting rid of Saddam would help "stop people from wanting to become terrorists", and would stop a government that he believed sponsored terrorism. However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The intelligence suggests few, if any, connections between Iraq and terrorist organizations, and I think that all the war in Iraq has served to do is: 1) kill Americans, and 2) create more terrorists.

"the neocon propaganda machine", "neocon influence", conflating Pollard's much more serious case 20 years ago with this new "spy" case which, despite the fervent hopes of Buchanan et al appears to be nothing, the reference to those who dare question the gospel according to Mel Gibson. All the tropes are there. C'mon guys, you're getting close. Just a little bit more. You can do it.

Oy.

This comment section spiraled too far out of control. I don't know where to start in responding. I just want to ask Rick Blaine and his whole crew to stop with the 'we expect better from you' shit that they pull every single time they disagree with me, since it kind of loses its meaning that way.

Sorry Eric. While I cheerfullly admite to being an American nationalist, that does not equate to me being an anti-Semite. One of the most powerful works of theology I ever read was from Balthazar who expressed my hope that good people from various faiths will find salvation. While my feelings for Israel are not as strong as my love for this republic that I call home, I think Israel is a great country that needs to exsist. I think that Jews are the elder brothers of the Christians in faith. We may not be in accordance on everything, but we are in the same family.

I use the term neocon to describe American conservatives who have broken from traditional American conservtaism on mostly international affiars. There are a number of neocons who are not Jewish, from Fred Barnes to Jeff Bell to even Gary Bauer.

I say Bauer for a reason. I think that evangelical christians have been some of Isreal's greatest supporters over the years and that this alliance has come under strain lately for a number of reasons. This support for Israel is due for several reasons from ideas on the rapture and the coming millenium to a literal reading of the scripture.

My fear is that this alliance has come under strain which may grow worse if Bush loses. A lot of the hysteria over the Gibson film came from people associated with neocons, including Charles Krautheimer. While these attacks did not go as far as others (I'm thinking of a review in TNR which said Mel Gibson would have blood on his hands for this film), they showed a huge divide in thought. Many Christians saw the film as a powerful expression of their faith. Some Jews saw it as the nightmares of the past ready to take hold again. This is a great divide and one that has led to some divisions since both sides fail to see where the other is coming from.

And yes if the Franklin case turns out to be a damaging blow for American intelligence, the media will remind us about the Pollard affair. If Bush loses, there will be a civil war on the right and the Republican party the likes of which has not been seen since 1964 and, yes, America's role abroad, including our relations and roleswith Iraq and Israel, will be brought into play. If the Franklin case goes nuclear, friends of Israel, including a number of the neocons who support American support for democracies abroad, will be on the defensive.

No worries, Karol. You have succeeded in lowering my epectations sufficiently. See ya. Or not.

Eric:

Neoconservativism is an ideology. It does not refer to an ethnic group or a religion. And I have to disagree with Von Bek because I do not even consider neoconservatives conservative. Neocons support a big welfare state (run by them instead of the Left) and an imperialist America. I do not see anything conservative about them.
When I use the term neocon in the context of foreign policy, I refer to the kind of people who use the phrases "liberating Iraq" or "draining the swamps." Neocons seem to believe it is America's job to remake the Middle East. Many neocons have taken the low road and accused critics of anti-Semitism. They sound just like Jesse Jackson complaining about whites who are opposed to affirmative action. It is easier to call names than to present an effective counter argument. My feeling is that I would rather criticize what I think is wrong than be worried that someone may call me a nasty name.

Von Bek:

I hope you are right about a showdown within the Republican party, but I think you are too optimistic. There is a lot of money and influence backing the neocons (WSJ editorial page, News Corp., the American Enterprise Institute, etc.) I do not see any credible counterweight to these on the right that will redirect the Republican party to become more conservative on fiscal issues, immigration or foreign policy. Instead, I think conservatives will be without a party for a long time to come.