Politics Blog

From Power Line:

There have been 53 combat deaths in Iraq in the 90-plus days since May 1–roughly one every other day, about half the Army’s accidental death rate during peacetime. Yet every one of these deaths has been front-page news. Why?

Not because of the strategic significance of this casualty rate, which is zero–just as the roughly equal rate of accidental deaths of troops in Iraq has no impact on the strategic situation there. And not because such an intense focus on near-zero casualty rates is a standard staple of war reporting. Past wars have, needless to say, generated vastly greater casualty rates. At the height of the Vietnam war, to which liberals longingly compare Iraq, an average of 40 American servicemen died each day–75 times the current rate in Iraq–and fatalities in World Wars I and II were far greater still. Yet in none of these conflicts was each casualty considered front-page news.

It is fair to say that no country has ever had to fight a war under this kind of scrutiny–where the death of every soldier is trumpeted in front-page headlines. It is doubtful whether a war can be fought under such circumstances. It has become a political commonplace to say that the continuing casualties in Iraq will, at some point, become a political problem for the Bush administration. I don’t doubt that this is true, given the tone of the news coverage, which suggests on a daily or near-daily basis that every fatality is proof of the failure of our effort in Iraq.

If we ask why the minuscule combat casualty rate in Iraq receives such intense publicity, while the nearly-equal accidental death rate there is almost ignored, and accidental deaths of soldiers in other parts of the world are never reported, there can be only one answer: the focus by the American press on every combat fatality represents a conscious effort to undermine the war effort and the Bush administration. Why else this sudden concern for the well-being of the American G.I.? Why else the ritual incantation:

A reader sent in a link to this poll showing Howard Dean leading in Iowa.

Go, Dean, Go! As I first predicted way back in February:

The person most likely to beat Kerry for the nomination is Howard Dean. It’s easy to see Dean becoming the darling of the liberal press and carrying Iowa, with its Democratic caucus peaceniks, and making a strong showing in New Hampshire, which is next door to his home state.

Now, six months later, the polls are bearing out that hypothesis and Time and Newsweek both feature Howard Dean on their covers. Karl Rove must be chuckling with glee at the thought of George W. Bush facing Howard Dean.

-- PoliPundit

Yet another Al Qaeda audio tape has emerged, this time threatening retribution if we execute any of the evil monsters locked up at Guantanamo Bay:

“America has announced it will start putting on trial in front of military tribunals the Muslim detainees at Guantanamo and might sentence them to death…”

“I swear in the name of God that the crusader America will pay a dear price for any harm it inflicts on any of the Muslim detainees,” said the tape broadcast by Dubai-based Al Arabiya television.

…

The speaker vowed to avenge every killing and ruling passed against Muslims detained at Guantanamo.

“We tell America only one thing. What you have suffered until now is only the initial skirmishes. The real battle has not started yet…

“Let America know that if it tortures them (detainees), it will be torturing itself and if it tries them it will be trying its own sons, and if it sentences them then it will be sentencing its own people,” he said.

Al Qaeda has already had plenty of provocation - we’ve destroyed the Taliban, killed several top Al Qaeda figures, captured others, invaded Iraq and put Uday and Qusay Hussein’s bodies on public display. Weren’t we supposed to pay a terrible price for each of these “atrocities"? That’s what Al Qaeda kept telling us in various audio and video tapes.

Hey, Al Qaeda, what are you waiting for? If you’re going to attack us, stop talking about it and just do it already!

Or could it be that we’re (gasp) winning the War on Terror? Could it be that the “smirking chimp” in the White House has stopped Al Qaeda from launching any terrorist attacks? Could it be that Al Qaeda can’t launch any any terrorist attacks because its surviving leaders are too busy running for their lives? Could it be that Al Qaeda operatives now live in terror, altering their appearances and sending out audio tapes instead of video tapes?

There hasn’t been a single major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.

Think about that for a moment. Islamo-terrorists have struck repeatedly in Russia, Indonesia, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Pakistan. But, despite all the bluster from the purported “voice” of Osama Bin Laden, he has been utterly unable to kill Americans in America. All he can do is cower in a cave, waiting to be blown to bits or dragged out of his bed in chains, like most of his flunkies already have been.

Not a single major attack on US soil since 9/11/01. Not one.

There are three reasons for this surprisingly pleasant turn of events: George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft.

-- PoliPundit

Jim Wooten notes that Democrats in the South can only win by not revealing their true colors:

While waiting for his car in downtown Atlanta, [Georgia] House Speaker Terry Coleman (D-Eastman) makes small talk with two young men of college age, interns perhaps, at least one of whom plans to run for office.

As a reporter approaches from behind, the speaker is asking whether the lad intends to run as a Democrat or a Republican.

“A Republican, I’m sure,” the young man replies.

“Well, you can talk like one and be a Democrat,” Coleman advises.

Coleman, unaware of the reporter’s presence, has not inadvertently revealed the Coca-Cola formula. He has simply declared what every Southern Democrat knows to be true: If you talk like a national Democrat in Georgia, you win Atlanta and Decatur and are trounced elsewhere. You can, as former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland did, vote with the national Democratic Party, but not blatantly and religiously. Or you lose.

…

On taxes, leading Democratic presidential contenders, such as Howard Dean, are already talking about raising them while repealing or reducing Bush’s tax cuts. On Iraq, they offer no coherent message or alternative, appearing to depend on bad news from the front to find openings.

As it drifts, the party is losing the middle class. “Among middle-class voters, the Democratic Party is a shadow of its former self,” Democratic pollster Mark J.Penn told the DLC this week. If it doesn’t find a way to appeal to more conservative mainstream voters, next year could be a disaster in this region, with Republicans winning Senate seats in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina.

George McGovern, your party is waiting.

This is why a Howard Dean candidacy is so interesting. The president could defeat just about any Democratic nominee; but, with Howard Dean at the top of the ticket, Democrats won’t just be facing a disastrous presidential race. They’ll be facing annihilation in the South and the West. Hapless “moderate” Democrats in states like Georgia will face the prospect of running for re-election with an angry ultra-leftwing candidate at the top of the ticket.

-- PoliPundit

Have you noticed how, when Hollywood stars become known as Democratic “activists,” their careers seem to nosedive? Check out the reviews for Ben Affleck’s new movie, Gigli. There’s only one positive review out of dozens. Even Battlefield Earth had more defenders.

UPDATE: Glitter had more positive reviews than Gigli. The Madonna disaster Swept Away, which took in only about a half-million dollars, had more positive reviews. Heck, Showgirls got a better reception from critics than Gigli!

-- PoliPundit

Some readers wonder why, if I want Howard Dean to be the Democratic presidential nominee, I’m being so open about it. If conservatives and Republicans publicly wish for Dean to be the Democratic nominee, wouldn’t that hurt his chances of winning the nomination?

The answer, curiously, is no.

Most Democrats - 69 percent in a recent Zogby poll - believe the president is likely to win re-election. Therefore, they’d rather go down “with their boots on” than attempt to make a real race of it. Also, core Democrats’ hatred of the president - see this screed for instance - makes it unlikely that they’ll trust anything that Republican or “moderate” Democrat strategists have to say. The kind of people who’re likely to vote in the Democratic primary seem to have decided that the only chance they have of beating George W. Bush is to wage all-out war against him by “standing up for what they believe in.” Thus, the more analysts like me point out that Dean is an unelectable radical, the more support he gets in the Democratic primary. Amazing, no?

-- PoliPundit

Charles Krauthammer says it’s better to take Saddam dead than alive:

We had no wish to take Uday and Qusay alive. We did the correct thing in giving them one chance to surrender. But no more. The moment we captured them we would have been responsible for their care and feeding forever. They were in their 30s. It would have meant that for the next 50 years the Hussein dynasty would have been kept alive – by us.

For half a century, Iraqis would justly live in fear of a restoration. It was not for nothing that Richard III had his nephews killed in the Tower of London. We don’t do that today. In fact, we leave unmolested Saddam’s other offspring – three daughters and a son that had no role in the regime. But when confronted with Saddam’s designated heirs, world-class murderers who refused to surrender, the idea of waiting them out so that we could forever be custodians of their restoration is simply insane.

Which suggests a plan for when we finally find Saddam. We give him, oh, 30 seconds to contemplate his surrender – after all, he has had about five months to mull it over – and then we kill the monster. And the ghosts that still surround him.

-- PoliPundit