Well, you certainly made the Mullhas in Iran, Hezboullah, Bin-Laden group, and Yasser Arafat very happy. Congradualtions!!! Oh ! one more person that you made happy is
Malaysia's former prime minister who has urged Muslims in America to vote for US Senator John Kerry in the Nov 2 presidential election, saying President George W. Bush has been 'the cause of the tragedies' across the Muslim world. 'Vote Bush out of office,' Dr Mahathir Mohamad said in an open letter dated Oct 15 to America's Muslim community. 'It is truly an ibadah (act of devotional worship) that you perform.'

So, Mr. Drezner you had trully perfromed the "ibadah". Great!

A Middle Eastern Woman for Bush

Congratulations, Dan. The key word is the business world these days is "accountability." In Bush, we have a leader who has consistently made bad decisions and has not reassessed those decisions as the failures became apparent. In 2000, Bush promised to bring a CEO's mentality and accountability to the presidency. The obvious turth is that a CEO with Bush's record would either have been fired by his Board or faced a shareholder revolt long ago. In politics, we only get a chance to hold the president accountable once every four years... to fail to do so now would be unconscionable. You may not be thrilled with Kerry... but at least a Bush loss will send a clear message to the Republican party that they need to do better than this.

Your quote by David Adesnik sums up all of your analysis quite neatly. Me, I'm a whitebread county club kid, morphed into a business manager. I'm voting for Bush for the same reason your voting for Kerry.

I see Kerry's worldview further along the development ladder than those of Bush. How do we develop as a people to a worldview greater than that of Bush or Kerry?

How can we utilize the strengths of each worldview, and minimize the weakness of each worldview?

We have a clash of worldviews in this country and an even greater one in the world. It isn't going to be an easy decade.

"However, here's the one thing I am confident about -- a Kerry administration is likely to recognize, once the multilateral diplomacy fails, that it will actually have to come up with a viable alternative."

What leads you to that conclusion? The Clinton team's answer was to walk away and ignore the problems when diplomacy failed. What evidence in the world is there that Kerry wont pull the troops out ASAP and bury the 'stick' in the backyard? That would be precisely what his record would indicate.

Speaking of accountability, why doesnt anyone want to hold Kerry accountable for a lifetime of being a kneejerk peacenick? Particularly 20 years in the senate with a trackrecord of appeasement broken only occasionally by political expediency? I dont know what's scarier, a dove in the white house, or a dove in the white house who might decide to act tough based on poll numbers. Carter or LBJ? Either way Kerry is a danger.

My principled view is kekekekekeke exclamation point exclamation point one one one one.

Sorry. Just channeling my inner hatred for the 2004 election there.

Vote Badnarik- at least he knows he's crazy. I sure did.

Well, Drezner, I certainly hope you're right. However, I still maintain that whoever wins the election, the American people will lose.

I had believed that this was serious until I read

>And if the Kerry campaign is stupid enough to let Theresa continue to speak to the press, there's an off-chance that in a fit of pique I'll vote to deny her the opportunity to be First Lady.

That is more egregious than, for example, the photo-ops involving the faux rancher Bush himself on his Disneyland-like ranch in Crawford? You must be joking.

Praise the lord, and here's a log for that fire.

Thank you, Dan.

Basically, that's what it comes down to. I'm no Kerry enthusiast, but this country, for a myriad of reasons, cannot afford another Bush term (note: I am not saying another Republican term, I am saying another Bush term). In my view, everyone who votes for Kerry is helping me and my friends and family, and thousands of people I'll never meet, by putting Bush and his ilk out of power. Perhaps this will give the Republican party a chance to re-grasp some of what I've voted for in the past: fiscal responsibility, states rights, personal responsibility.

So, thank you.

I stopped reading Adesnik after this post in March. http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_03_21_oxblog_archive.html#108010533288292764

His opinion and analysis are worthless to me and I will certainly make sure EVERY ONE of my fellow soldiers knows his position and true character for future reference as he is positioning himself to be a future Assistant Secretary of Defense.

That you quote him diminishes you significantly in my eyes. You may not care. Fine.

The guys at OxBlog (Chafetz has shown himself to be someone with problems seeing reality) have shown themselves to be typical snot nosed elites who haven't done anything yet but go to school.

This country cannot afford four years of Kerry. Dems are deluding themselves into thinking he will bring back the Clinton years. Whatever mistakes you think Bush has made, I greatly fear the mistakes that a wavering Kerry will make.

But in the end, I can't vote for a president who doesn't believe that what he believes might, just might, be wrong.

Absurd, and here's the proof, twofold:

1- I don't recall your ever having called for JOhn Kerry toa dmit HE was wrong. OOf course, given he's nothing approaching a rocrd of taking strong stands unless it was America he was taking a stand against, I suppsoe you've got nothging to go for on that side of the ball.

2- You're asking people to vote for someone who doesn't really believe in what he's doing. If you don't beleive in what you're doing, how effective will you be?

Sorry, Dan, looks from here your logic is wanting. Else, you made the choice months ago, and, Sullivan- like, have been stringing this along and this is your effort to justify your choice.

It doesn't justify it, it argues against it.

I see no evidence for either the proposition that Kerry would recognize a mistake in the decion-making process, or implement decisions in a way yielding a greater probability of success. Both are statements of faith.

Kerry and most of the post-Vietnam Democratic foreign policy establishment were grotesquely wrong about the handling of the Soviet Union during the 1980s. Even in the cold light of what we now know, they have not reassessed their views or acknowledged their errors.

On implementation, we have only the examples of Bosnia and Kosovo, and it's hard to argue that either was or is a smoothly running machine. Indeed, in their own way they've been as messy as the operation in Iraq. The main difference is that we minimized our own casualties, though not those of the civilian populations.

> I'm voting for Kerry.

Someday, your children will thank you.

Daniel Drezner wrote:

So I'm voting for Kerry.

Did you really think anyone bought this “oh, I’m struggling with this decision” line of BS when it was pretty obvious in how you weighted the issues and used inconsistent arguments that you were planning on going for Kerry all along?

Color us unsurprised.

> The Clinton team's answer was to walk away and
> ignore the problems when diplomacy failed.
>
> Posted by Mark Buehner at October 22, 2004
> 12:58 PM

Prediction: If Bush wins, in four years, his supporters will still be blaming everything on Clinton.

Dan, congratulations on making the right decision.

Little nitpick: This post would have been a great lead-in to the "Tom Friedman, over here!" post. The other way round it was a bit odd.

And a prediction: More and more people are coming to realize Bush's grave mistakes. But thanks to the incompetence of the media, not enough people may actually get it by Election Day. But that doesn't mean the trend won't continue past Election Day, especially once the anti-Kerry spin machine stops churning out distractions.

Consequently, Bush may still squeak by and win re-election, but in that case (I'd give that a 50-50 chance right now), he will have record low approval levels right after the election and probably throughout his second term. Which could lead to all sorts of interesting and unexpected outcomes (e.g. a Democratic sweep of the House and Senate in 2006).

fortunately, you're not in a swing state.

I can't completely argue with those who remain concerned with Kerry. Keep in mind two points, though:

1) GOP will remain in control of Congress. This is true even
if they lose majority status in the Senate, since as we've
seen the minority in the Senate has a lot of power. This is
key since it will sharply constrain Kerry. Some of the worst
things Bush supporters here seem to fear about Kerry are
just unlikely in this scenario. This is particularly true if
Kerry doesn't correct any mistakes in his first two years,
since the midterm elections would then go sharply against
him.

2) A Bush loss gives the GOP a chance to regroup, without
Bush's baggage. If Kerry does poorly in the next four
years (and from 1) above I don't think he will be allowed to
make dramatic mistakes), then he will be replaced.

Dan's choice (which I agree with) is about minimizing
problems the next four years. It's not that either man
is a "good" choice, just that Bush has made too many
bad decisions along the way and has shown *no*
inclination to either learn from or fix them, whereas
Kerry is less likely to screw up as badly.

Despite the fact that I agree with your eventual decision... unless you exercise mind control over a hive-like collective of 10,000 voters in Florida, Ohio, or Wisconsin, it's been a lot of sound and fury.

You a man who has proven to have strength and character. If everyone would just take the time to find out the differences... I can only imagine how many more Bush supporters would change their minds. Be a Republican, that's fine. But this time vote Democrat b/c Bush has disgraced the Republican party and put our beloved country in jeopardy.

Bithead wrote:

Sorry, Dan, looks from here your logic is wanting. Else, you made the choice months ago, and, Sullivan- like, have been stringing this along and this is your effort to justify your choice.

The other logical conclusion is that all of the other posts that Daniel Drezner made about the vilification of outsourcing, trade protectionism, and his purported concern over federal spending were simply a smokescreen to give him credibility when he officially announced his decision to vote for a candidate who was objectively worse on each.

"Well, Drezner, I certainly hope you're right. However, I still maintain that whoever wins the election, the American people will lose."

I'd be remiss if I didn't STRONGLY agree. I'm voting for Kerry, but my money's on Bush to win a second term. That's another reason I don't understand why everyone's slamming Danny over his endorsement. The Dems can't get their bloody act together, and they can only pray that Republican hegemony won't be running rampant come January (This is of course assuming the courts are done with their piece).

"Whatever Kerry's policy, the decision-making process and the implementation of those decisions would lead to a greater probability of success."

What a...wonkesque view of the world. Just out of curiosity, can you point to an example of a wrong policy competently pursued leading to a good outcome? It would be nice if your example could be of something Kerry has done, but I'd settle for anything, because I'm genuinely baffled at how, say, efficiently cutting and running in Iraq would be a success if the policy of cut and run would be a distaster....unless you don't really mean "whatever Kerry's policy."

Add my "Yay, Dan!" to the chorus, if only to help counter Thorley Winston's ugly grumbling. (Go back to Tacitus, Thorley, where people with center-left opinions can simply be cut from the blog, like Trickster was. Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quae velis, et quae sentias, dicere licet. Indeed. Maybe the blog will be renamed "Augustus," to match the statue?)

This election hasn't even been a hard choice, for anyone who's been paying attention to the facts. Kerry's no genius, but the utter failure of Bush to succeed at ANYTHING he's tried (with the possible exception of re-election?) has been amazing.

Which makes this election a test of the power of ideology, pure and simple. If Bush can win a second term after the past four years, then the republic is in serious, serious trouble. (See the evidence that Bush's typical supporters are clueless as to his actual positions.)

Whether or not Dan's vote makes any difference electorally, its moral importance is very real. Congratulations to Prof. Drezner for letting the facts influence his vote. It's a rare quality these days.

Hey Frieda, eat shit and die.

I don't believe that Kerry gets Drezners vote because of Bush's decisionmaking process, that makes no sense. First, most reports are hearsay from disgruntled insiders. Second, Bush has reversed courses on lots of issues, usually after lots of debate within the WH. Going to the UN before into Iraq, stem cells, control on the ground shifting from DOD to State, etc.

Also, decisionmaking process only is meaningful in that it allows voters to know the likely decisions to be made. Kerry has made horrible decisions as Senator, and very nearly ruined his campaign by his own horribly indecisive decisionmaking process. His decisions are simply calculated to be the most low-risk possible to reach his desired end. The Vietnam candidate, chasing Howard Dean, choosing John Edwards.

In the WoT, I question the judgment of anybody who thinks a indecisive crwod pleasing decisionmaking process is superior to a stick-by-your guns attitude, while altering tacitcs behind the scenes.

Because the decisonmaking rationale is so unconvincing, I'll guess at hidden motives. Gay marriage doesn't seem to be a big issue for Drezner, so there is no Sullivan effect. Perhaps Drezner has changed his mind and thinks that the war is a bad idea and its easier to blame Bush for the result rather than admit perhaps it was the inevitable result of any action in Iraq. I think thats whats going on with a lot of former hawks going soft. We are still in a pretty good spot considering all the risks going in. The second reason for the Kerry vote I'm guessing is that liberal pals are having the drip effect appealling to the security that comes with agreeing with the consensus among social peers, much like what happens on the SC with subpar justices.

Ah well, still Volokh and Reynolds are on the right side, and I'd much rather have those two on my side than Drezner and Sully.

Of course you realize, Dr. Drezner, that the amount of time and mental energy you put into this decisions was not rational -- heck, is Ill. even close?

The real question is Obama or Keyes.

God bless you Dan.

Thorley Winston: Right, like we all didn’t know that months ago.

Yeah, I wasn't particularly convinced by the whole act either. Kinda felt like he wanted to create the impression that it took a long time for him to be convinced when it really didn't.

Probably the first time I've agreed with you on anything. :)

"[A] Kerry administration is likely to recognize, once the multilateral diplomacy fails, that it will actually have to come up with a viable alternative."

I put Kerry's plan to internationalize the occupation in the same category as Clinton's middle class tax cut in 1992, i.e., they both know it's baloney, but it sounds good. If Kerry is elected, expect a speech in the early spring saying "I tried, but I couldn't get the allies on board, so we need to do x." What x is I have no idea. (And if Kerry really wants to be mean, he can blame W for his inability to bring more countries on board.)

If Kerry honestly believes he can get significant international support, then we're in a whole heap of trouble.

I don't believe that Kerry gets Drezners vote because of Bush's decisionmaking process, that makes no sense. First, most reports are hearsay from disgruntled insiders.

Whom else would you expect to learn the truth from? Gruntled insiders? How do you think these folks became disgruntled in the first place? With such analytical skills, Reg, you're ready for a job with the Office of Special Plans. Give my love to Doug!

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Bush.

But pointing to Kerry's foreign policy and say he can't do any worse is questionable.

Dan accurately points out that Kerry is operating from an antiquated concept of multilateralism. However pointing to Kerry's concepts of viable alternatives we have: Promotion of human rights and labor unions! Labor unions to fight terror is certainly a radical concept. How Drum can mention this a serious idea instead of a pander to unions is a bit farfetched.

I will be interested to see if Kerry has the US Military leave Saudi Arabia as Biden threatened. I thought that the US military out of Saudi Arabia was a key objective of AQ and Kerry would accomplish that as a way of fighting the war on Terror?

I have enjoyed your reflective comments on the situations. I will say your frank discussions on foreign policy have made me consider voting for Bush more than anything else. I believe Bush's domestic policy will prevent me from voting for Bush but compared to Kerry's foreign policy, Bush is a much better alternative. And I never really wanted to invade Iraq in the first place.

But there is nothing in Kerry's distant past or recent history to suggest to me that he'll ever make a tough decision to fight terror.

I'd bet those proportional numbers for troops required in Iraq would still undershoot the mark.

In Kosovo, 90% of the population viewed, initially and for a long time after, the NATO forces as adjuncts in their liberation from Serbs. The vast bulk of the population had a feeling of goodwill towards the occupiers.

In Bosnia, things had pretty much worked themselves to a stalemate even before the NATO bombings of Serb positions around Sarajevo. There was no way the Serbs could take, or really even wanted to take the City. The held the bits of land most important to them and consolidated their hold. The Muslims and Croats were also fairly satisfied with their position for the short to midterm. Populations were ethnically concentrated, thus ensuring solid support for nationalist parties (think of it as gerrymandering, but you move the people rather than the constituency lines).

In short, in Kosovo and Bosnia, the occupiers ratified a done deal on the ground, in Iraq, the war smashed order, and the 'Coalition' forces were/are there during the sorting out phase. Indeed, the case could be made they are an obstacle to a native solution to the territories problems.

Was there any doubt that he made this decision months ago?

Look, I think it was pretty clear that Dan was going to vote for Kerry a month ago, but Dan is a thoughtful guy and a politics junkie, meaning that he wanted to be meticulous about his decision. There's nothing wrong or disingenuous with that. I wish more people would think as carefully about their vote as Dan.

Somebody with a blog needs to start a betting pool on when guys like Drezner, Sullivan, Chafetz, etc. realize Kerry was the wrong choice if Kerry is elected.

My bets:
Sullivan-changes his mind before the inauguration after realizing Bush's FMA support was really not that important

Drezner-next April, as Kerry pulls troops out of Baghdad into rural bases and reduces troop levels in half, and within his first 100 days sends Edwards out to promote his new "Fair Trade Plan" and signs new labor laws making it easier for unions to organize without elections

Chafetz & Adesknik-When Kerry has Arafat to the WH to announce the end of US aid for Israel and tells Sharon to "tear down that wall" sounding nothing like Ronald Reagan. OR when the mullahs brutally put down a student protest reminiscent of Tiannamen and the Kerry WH makes no condemnation so as not to upset our talks with them over how much nuclear materials we need to supply them for them to promise to end their weapons program.

Mickey Kaus-When Iran and NK both test nuclear weapons in 2006 within the same month of each other, he decides perhaps we needed Bush around to keep making more history rather than letting the axis of evil make it.

"Whom else would you expect to learn the truth from? Gruntled insiders?"

Bush's decisionmaking process can be seen from the decisions reached without resort to anecdotes from the losers in internal WH debates (as reported by Ron Suskind). The big decisions are stuck to relentlessly, and tactics shift according to the situation, though the changes aren't acknowledged. In making the big decisions, he usually had opposing views within the WH arguing both sides of the case. Of course the losers like O'Neill and Clark are going to say the decisionmaking process is flawed because Bush wasn't convinced by them. That they seem to be two extremely arrogant people also makes it difficult to trust their accounts of why Bush didn't go their way.

why don't you abstain, or vote third party.

I'd like start a pool on when Reg realizes he's an angry fool.

Dibs on never.

Dan,

Now that your decision is made, what are you going to do to make your belief of what is best for the nation is what our f'd up electoral process actually decides?

Wondered how long it would take for you to be declared a traitor and an Osama lover. Then I read the first comment.

Republicans (I will not sully the name of conservatism by calling them conservatives) are no longer the party of reason. I hope Bush loses for the sake of the Republican Party. This unthinking hero worship is not healthy.

I don't think anyone can conclusively rebut the "maybe my guy is even less incompetent than your guy" argument. IMHO, a vote for either of these two is a faith-based initiative.

As an aside, following the links to the Kevin Drum piece was quite fun. My favorite tough-guy rhetoric was this:

Nor does Kerry intend to shy away from a cardinal source of funding for the madrassas — Saudi Arabia. Biden in particular is prepared to confront the Saudis over their troublesome ideological adventures. "Our policy should be: Cease and desist, or we've got to figure out new relationships here," he says. "Am I going to invade your country? Hell no. Are we going to depose you? Hell no. But let me tell you: Are we going to supply the physical security for your continued existence? I don't know."

Excellent! We will force the Saudis to arm themselves and seek new allies - that'll show 'em!

And I feel a more stable Middle East already, as the Saudis look for an accomadation with the Iranians, and contemplate the merits of going nuclear since they have been asked to go it alone.

This May WaPo interview with Kerry is also timeless.

The lead:

Sen. John F. Kerry indicated that as president he would play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia, instead focusing on other objectives that he said are more central to the United States' security.

Oh, and I forgot, re: Frieda's comment---

Well, you certainly made the Mullhas in Iran, Hezboullah, Bin-Laden group, and Yasser Arafat very happy.

---that the mullahs in Iran appear to have made their endorsement known:

The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Could be them playing us for fools, of course; they've done such a good job of that already. But look:

Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies — the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."

Maybe Bush can run for Ayatollah after he loses. He's got the faith-based personality for the job, that's for sure.

Sam wrote:

Look, I think it was pretty clear that Dan was going to vote for Kerry a month ago, but Dan is a thoughtful guy and a politics junkie, meaning that he wanted to be meticulous about his decision. There's nothing wrong or disingenuous with that.

On the contrary it is disingenuous to lead on your readers by pretending to be undecided about something you had already decided on (something you and I agree Daniel Drezner had already made a long time ago). He has presented a number of rationales (finally going back to his earlier criticism of troop levels in Iraq although he has scrupulously avoided addressing arguments that there are good reasons for the level of troops we have or evidence that this was what the generals on the ground recommended) that have been challenged rather thoughtfully by many of his readers from pointing out that “divided government” isn’t the panacea for “limited government” that many would hope or that Bush’s trade record is no different from most presidents (e.g. Clinton) and objectively better than John Kerry, and ignoring a whole host of domestic and foreign policy issues in which Bush is objectively (from a libertarian/conservative standard) better than Kerry because it would contradict or mitigate against a decision to vote for Kerry.

Moreover, since the crux of Drezner’s criticism of Bush is supposedly that the later refuses to consider or address arguments that challenge his assumptions, isn’t Daniel Drezner guilty of the very thing he accuses President Bush of doing?

Drezner wasn’t being meticulous in making his decision, he was just being dishonest in trying to come up with a rationale to justify it.

Better than decisionmaking process, I think the priority of a candidate's values is a better way to choose who to vote. So how do you vote for a guy who values his hair more than supporting his baseball team?

"Bleary-eyed from watching the Red Sox past midnight and getting up before dawn to go goose hunting, John F. Kerry emerged from his armored sport-utility vehicle near midday yesterday, pumping his fist and pointing to his Sox cap--which was in his hand, not on his head. . . ."

What a joke.

You had to do it. I hope you get tenure.

Remeber, what you do in the voting both is nobody's business but your own.

Dave wrote:

I put Kerry's plan to internationalize the occupation in the same category as Clinton's middle class tax cut in 1992, i.e., they both know it's baloney, but it sounds good. If Kerry is elected, expect a speech in the early spring saying "I tried, but I couldn't get the allies on board, so we need to do x." What x is I have no idea. (And if Kerry really wants to be mean, he can blame W for his inability to bring more countries on board.)

If Kerry honestly believes he can get significant international support, then we're in a whole heap of trouble.

If Kerry really thinks that what we see on the evening news (“if it bleeds, it leads”) is an accurate representation of world events rather than just the most “exciting” portions, then it doesn’t say much for either his understanding of the world or the kind of resolve he’d show if he were ever Commander in Chief. If on the other hand (more likely IMO), he is simply trying to exploit this to get votes against Bush and is willing to undermine public support for the war to do it (much like he repeatedly dissed our allies and the Iraqis fighting and dying against the insurgents), then he’s even more despicable than many of us thought.

Welcome, depressingly, aboard. AN unenthusiastic vote for Kerry, followed by four years of loyal opposition, is the right and responsible thing to do under the circumstances. Demonstrated incompetence, antagonism toward evidence, and deceptiveness shouldn't be rewarded with re-election, if there's a basically-acceptable alternative.

We're more likely to get competent foreign policy for four years, and more likely to have a Republican Party that values responsibility and accountability and governing ability in four years, if Kerry wins now. If W wins, the Republican Party carries away the lessons that a government-growth spending agenda will be rewarded, that honesty in policymaking and competence in policy-execution are superfluous, and the intentions of those in government-- their conviction that they're on the right side, and that they sincerely want desirable outcomes-- are more important than the actual delivery of outcomes. This would be a depely unhealthy set of things for the GOP to become convinced of.

I commend your decision and believe you are making it based on very solid reasoning. Keep up the good work.

"a lot of sound and fury" - Hey, that's my department.

Speaking of departments, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that any non-tenured academic outside a law school publicly pimping for Bush is just asking to be blackballed at tenure time (even at UC). Just thought I'd drag that elephant back into the picture frame for some of you critics upthread.

"I'd like start a pool on when Reg realizes he's an angry fool."

Heh, foolish, daily; angry, never. The left has a monopoly on anger (and name-calling it seems).

Much better argument on who to vote for here:

http://windsofchange.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/3516

Bush wins because of determination. That seems much more convincing than that wus-out answer "descionmaking process." Oh yeah, fear my decisonmaking process you terrorist bastards.

A monopoly on name calling and anger? Oh, Reg, I guess you haven't checked out the web sites and comment sections of some of your fellow travelers on the right. There is plenty of name calling and anger on both sides. I used to deplore it. I don't anymore, now that I realize that people like you are the enemies of the counrty I love. So fuck you, Reg. I hope that, if Bush is re-elected, you are one of the people that dies in the resulting nuclear conflagration.

Name calling? Refer to comment one.

I'm actually more depressed about the accusations of deciding in bad faith.

"Somebody with a blog needs to start a betting pool on when guys like Drezner, Sullivan, Chafetz, etc. realize Kerry was the wrong choice if Kerry is elected."

My predictions:

-Kerry will spend more money in his term than Bush spent in his.

-Kerry will welcome Arafat back into the fold, and put the screws on Israel.

-No significant additional foriegn forces in Iraq.

-Iran will develop a nuclear weapon basically unimpeded.

-NK will demonstrate the ability to hit the US mainland with a nuke. Bilateral negotiations notwithstanding. Oh and China will fall back asleep having no place in bilateral talks.

-Pakistan will slide back towards winking at terrorism. Kashmir will explode in violence risking nuclear war.

-US forces will be withdrawn from Iraq prematurely. Bush will be blamed. To boost his hawk bonifides additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan to look for non-existant Al Qaeda. Unless they bring backhoes OBL wont be found. Anti-US/Karzai sentiment will increase with the number of forces. Bush will be blamed.

-Anti-Americanism will decline in Europe following Kerrys election. For 2 weeks. After that the relationships continue to deterriorate finally resulting in Euros realizing they didnt just hate George Bush, they hate the people that elected him. George Bush will be blamed.

Notice that almost every critical comment about Dan's choice is focusing on why he shouldn't vote for Kerry, not why he should vote for Bush.

Lots of "Kerry will do this, Kerry won't do that, Kerry will do this, Kerry will make Osama Secretary of State blah blah blah." Precious little "Bush will do this, doesn't that sound great?" or "Bush has done this and it worked out great so vote for him so he can keep on doing it."

I wonder why that is.

Drezner: well done.

Kerry bashers: how did you all become so cynical? I suppose being afraid and deluded can make one cynical.

To be fair, I suppose I can be lucid and cast aspersions, so there.

To Frieda

The mullahs? HAHAHA... didn't you know Iran endorsed Bush?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041020/news_1n20iran.html

It's true, 75% of Republicans don't live in the real world. don't be one of them.

Oh, Reg, I guess you haven't checked out the web sites and comment sections of some of your fellow travelers on the right. There is plenty of name calling and anger on both sides.

Partially true, there is some, but far more anger is on the left and it is far more mainstream. Compare Kos and Redstate, or Instapundit and Atrios, or Drum and Tacitus. Lefties can debate unmolested for the most part on Tacitus where rightwingers get cussed out regularly on Drum, Yglesias, or here, amazingly.

"So fuck you, Reg. I hope that, if Bush is re-elected, you are one of the people that dies in the resulting nuclear conflagration."

I don't know how to respond to that. Forgive me.

"Notice that almost every critical comment about Dan's choice is focusing on why he shouldn't vote for Kerry, not why he should vote for Bush."

Yeah so what. Not much is given as to why we should vote for Kerry, in fact until the Republican convention, the only reason given was he served in Vietnam. The rest was all, Anybody but Bush.
Nothing wrong with that either. Deciding who to vote for is usually looking at the incumbent and deciding if the other guy offers more or less. It seems obvious that for anybody strongly in support of the WoT Kerry offers far far less.

Jacob Leavy wrote:

If W wins, the Republican Party carries away the lessons that a government-growth spending agenda will be rewarded,

I see, and you think that if a Democrat challenger defeats a Republican incumbent by campaigning against Social Security privatization while promising to create a new $895 Billion health care entitlement program and to spend more on social programs, that will teach Republicans they need to cut spending why exactly?

Seriously, I realize that you too made the decision to vote for Kerry months ago while keeping up the pretense that you’re doing this for some sort of phony “libertarian” rationale but the primary reason why Governor Bush became the GOP nominee in 2000 was because Republicans were still gun-shy over being blamed for the government shut down in 1995 and losing seats in Congress in the following elections. Bush was a moderate GOP governor who focused pretty much on education and “compassionate conservatism” in the form of gradually moving the Nanny State into more of an “ownership society” direction with school choice, Social Security account, health care savings accounts, getting more private and religious organizations involved with dealing for the poor, etc. – domestic priorities that most conservatives and libertarians recognize are a necessary step towards shifting the direction of government and more likely to persuade the public than saying “government is the problem” (which was the picture painted by the Dems of Newt Gingrich and the Congressional GOP).

When a candidate loses a race, the lesson he and his party usually take away from it is that the public prefers the policies proposed by the victor rather than the loser. Should Bush lose reelection in 2000 to an opponent who successfully demonizes Social Security reform while promising a new health care entitlement, importing Canadian price controls, and even more levels of spending; the message it will probably send is that Republicans haven’t been liberal enough when it comes to domestic spending issues.

By the same token, should Kerry lose to Bush this fall, it would send the message that the public isn’t afraid of Social Security reform that lets workers invest part of the FICA dollars, that they don’t want socialized medicine and are willing to look at more market-oriented options, and that they believe the best way to fight the war is to continue going on offense and fight to transform the Middle East by spreading liberty rather than returning to the false “stability” of the past.

The way I see it, if you agree that Social Security needs to be reformed before the baby boom generation begins to retire, you vote for the candidate who is campaigning on reforming it not on the one demonizing reform. If you agree that the solution to health care is market-oriented reforms like expanding health care savings accounts, speeding up the approval of generic prescription drugs, expanding the ability of small businesses and individuals to form insurance pools, and introducing competition to Medicare; you vote for the candidate who campaigns on those issues and not the one promising to import Canadian price controls and to create another $895 Billion health care entitlement. If you agreed with the decision to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but might question some of the details of what to do afterwards, you vote for the guy who stands by the decision and fights like hell to make it succeed and not the guy who sends mixed signals about his support, who disses our allies and the Iraqis who fight and die while supporting us, and who’s own Senate record is one of pacifism and appeasement.

I know what I believe in and I’m voting accordingly.

Well put; I'm of a like mind.

The merits of your decision aside, Dan, that's one hell of an opening paragraph.

Welcome to the reality-based community.

I'm surprised that you have focused almost entirely on foreign policy and none of Kerry's economic policy. Kerry's positions on trade and outsourcing are almost directly opposite of yours. While Kerry claims to be a multilateralist with foreign policy, he employs economic isolationalist principles with his international economic policies. Even the Washington Post commented, "Possibly the worst thing in the platform is its unilateralist bent in threatening trade sanctions, a move that would trigger retaliation." (“Poor Platform for Trade,” Washington Post editorial, 7/27/04). There is some irony to this because by alienating other nations economically, he will contribute to fostering the very conditions that allow fundamentalism to take root.

You mentioned Kerry's decision-making process as one factor leading to your decision. We're given a great glimpse into his decision-making process here where he clearly has based his decision on playing to worker fears about outsourcing more than any rational trade or economic policy. You talked about the "outsourcing boogeyman" which has become the unofficial mascot for the Kerry campaign where it is used as a the reason for the jobless recovery to why we didn't capture Osama Bin Laden in Tora Bora (we outsourced it to warlords).

It also seems to be a stretch that Kerry has a better decision-making process. Where have we seen that demonstrated in his 20 year career? Serving on the Intelligence Committee gave him access to much of the same intelligence presented to the President. Kerry agreed with the President then. He agreed with the intelligence estimates in the 90s. He only began to disagree when launching his Presidential bid. That's not good decision making - it is political opportunism plain and simple.

On a side note - Kerry's campaign has done an excellent job making this election a referendum on the President's four years and not a referendum on Kerry's 20 years in national leadership.

Finally, I do think that a Kerry win would also be a win for the terrorists. I don't say that lightly because this sort of argument is quickly dismissed by many as challenging their patriotism or allegiance. That is not my intention one bit. However, I do think terrorists would feel empowered with the notion that they can impact the outcome of national elections. Their belief will be supported by the elections in Spain and, should Kerry win, the election here in U.S. It gives them a green light to use suicide bombings and beheadings to cast doubt in a nation's electorate in order to bring about a "regime change." It will rewrite the strategy for combating industrialized nations. Don't take on them on directly. Instead, wait and use grotesque beheadings and disruptive suicide bombings. Keep that up long enough, and you'll be able to effect even the largest nations.

I don't know what the solution is. But Kerry hasn't presented much of an alternative.

You people crack me up. You sound like Democrats after they lose an election.

Drezner has all along indicated that his p-value for Kerry was above 50%, but that he needed to be convinced that Kerry wouldn't utterly suck (at least more than Bush). Hmmm. Isn't that why the race tightened after the debates--because some of the undecideds saw that, under pressure, Kerry came through as a reasonable, if not great, candidate.

If Bush had listened to the experts, rather than to political hacks, he wouldn't have underestimated what rebuilding Iraq would take.

As Bush should know, any businessperson undertaking a project performs sensitivity analysis, where they examine what happens under any number of optimistic, normal, or pessismistic scenarios. Bush's problem is that his administration too often only considers the optimistic scenario. In Iraq, the only scenario they envisioned was the "We'll be greeted as liberators" scenario.

It took colossal incompetence on the part of Bush to make this a close election. Colossal incompetence is what we got.

Dan, very sorry to see all the personal attacks. Such treatment should be reserved for the folks who vote based on the last negative TV ad or campaign stump they see.

I get your point that you don't necessarily agree with Kerry, but you see his potential for causing damage greatly diminished by an opposing congress.

Well, I wouldn’t have resorted to name calling if I thought rational discourse with you was possible, Reg. Hundreds of your posts have convinced me that you are incapable of listening to reason. I see no need to engage in rational discourse with you.

But I would like to try to give you some insight into the next four years if that monster Bush wins again. You see, I’m a moderate, no extremist, and I believe in rational discourse. If you don’t believe me, check out my comments in Yglesias’ archive, or google my name for a link to the blog that I had for a couple of weeks a year and a half ago. But the Bush administration has filled me with hate and anger. Yes, I HATE George Bush and his evil cabal. I hate many (not all) of his supporters. I hate YOU Reg, because you are not just a reluctant, misguided “well Bush sucks, but he is better than Kerry” Bush supporter, but you are a true believer. At this stage of the game, if one is (1) a true believer, not just a lesser-of-two evils Bush supporter, and (2) relatively well informed, as you seem to be, then one can only be a MONSTER. And if Bush wins in November, or steals the election, there will be MILLIONS of people who feel the way I do. And we will express our rage. If I ever meet you in person, I will spit in your face. Assholes like you are raping our country.

As to the substance of your post, I disagree, but, as stated, have no desire to engage you in rational argument, so I will leave the refutation to others.

Dan,
You talk about responsibility. Well, how about Kerry accepting his part for supporting the Iraq war in the first place? He has barely talked about how Bush messed it up, just how the war was wrong> I cannot vote for a man who does one thing and demands others to do opposite.Therefore, I am not voting for neither Bush nor Kerry. Both do not accept resposiblity for their decisions.

Dan, I agree: you ought to make your vote based on whatever single piece of press you read last. In your case, you read Gordon, so you're voting Kerry.

Me, I just read a great piece by Krauthammer, so I guess I'll vote Bush.

However silly this sounds, it's still probably much more logical than the voting methodologies employed by the other 99% of the voting public.

Lemme get this straight, Larry: Vote for Kerry or I, and millions of potential (ostensible loyal American) psychopaths like me will wreak vengeance on the entire land. Something like that?

Make no mistake, Larry, and for that matter Dan, I don't care who you vote for. Really. It's not going to make THAT much difference either way.

But screw you if your mouth-foaming lasts past November 4th. Don't you dare threaten--even hint at--violence should your guy lose the election. Get a life.

Dan,
Respectfully. Have you read the 9/11 commission's report. Where in it do we get an apology or even a course correction in handling international Islamic terrorism from anyone in the Clinton Admin? I'd like a page number, please.

The way I see it, mistakes of omission were made by Clinton's people, while mistakes of commission have been made by Bush's. Either way, people died who should not have. People will go on dying, mistakes will go on being made by a President Kerry. What of it?

In the end, the decisive factor for me is this: after 6 to 12 months of "testing" President Kerry, our enemies and faux friends abroad will push him into doing many of the same things Bush would have done, only we'll have lost a year in the transition and the learning process--at least. The risks do NOT, in my estimation, outweigh the benefits.

The testing followed by the dithering followed by the overcompensating use of force--that's my prediction for a Kerry Presidency. I'll pass.

First, most reports are hearsay from disgruntled insiders.

Ever occur to you they have good reason to be disgruntled? And I don't think it's "hearsay" when they actually observed it.

Larry, have a drink, okay? Chill.

The core of truth in what Larry says, underneath the implied threats etc., is that many people who love America for being the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, despise Bush & Co. for their having dragged America's good name in the mud:

Torture in Abu Ghraib

"Preemptive" invasion of a country that neither attacked nor threatened us

Legal memos prepared on demand to support the President's assertion of dictatorial powers

Casual murder of the Iraqis we claim to protect

(Newest example, from the Nov. Atlantic:

There are many stories, glossed over in official reports, of innocent Iraqis who were shredded in their cars because they happeend to drive too close to a patrol that had been bombed or fired upon. Sometimes entire families died that way.)

So this election has a moral component that hasn't been so prominent in other elections. Are we endorsing torture, aggressive war, American dictatorship, and murder of civilians? Or are we repudiating those things?

Kelli and her cohort are either okay with those things, or deny their existence, or think that there are more important, countervailing reasons to vote Bush. They doubtless think that Larry and I are as immoral as we think they are for supporting the conversion of America the Beautiful into the Evil Empire. History will, perhaps, demonstrate who was right.

Kelli,

Kelli,

Not hintng, stating for a fact.

And no, I don't expect or intend to influence your vote or anyone else's. Personally, I doubt I'll resort to violence - spitting in Reg's face is the worst I'll do. But I expect, and HOPE that millions of others will. And that we will take back our nation from the criminal cabal that has stoleen it from us.

This country cannot afford four years of Kerry. Dems are deluding themselves into thinking he will bring back the Clinton years. Whatever mistakes you think Bush has made, I greatly fear the mistakes that a wavering Kerry will make.

The American public and Congress will keep him on the straight and narrow. You can't say that about Bush. He basically does what he wants, rarely right or horribly wrong.

Somebody with a blog needs to start a betting pool on when guys like Drezner, Sullivan, Chafetz, etc. realize Kerry was the wrong choice if Kerry is elected.

I'm not supporting Kerry because he's right on most things. I hope other conservatives who are supporting Kerry are not doing it because they think he's right on most things. He is, however, much better than the alternative.

In the unlikely event you reply to this specific comment, put my name in the reply.

Dan for what it is worth, next time the government is looking for a monday morning quarterback, you'll be the go to guy.

Hope your wrong, though I wont't be reading your blog anymore, but then I again I found you through Andrew Sullivan and I don't read his screed anymore either.

Later

"Ever occur to you they have good reason to be disgruntled?"

Again, that their arguments failed to convince in the internal WH debates.

"And I don't think it's "hearsay" when they actually observed it."

It is hearsay when people like Clarke report what Bush said. Also, what anonymous senior officials told reporters, or what Powell or Armitage allegedly said to reporters, is also hearsay. O'Neill backed off a lot of claims as reported by Suskind, suggesting reporters are spinning a lot of what is said to be as anti-Bush as possible.

Welcome to the reality-based community, Dan!

Congratulations.
Here is a link to a former Republican senator from Kentucky, Marlow W. Cook, who will vote for Kerry.
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/20/oped-marlow1020-8060.html

"I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress with requested information. I am against a government that refuses to tell the country with whom the leaders of our country sat down and determined our energy policy, and to prove how much they want to keep that secret, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court."

I am not a republican but if Kerry is elected I hope the republicans will take the opportunity to kick out Bush, Cheney, Perle, et al and bring back the adults like McCain. I look forward to an honest and vigorous campaign based on the issues next election.

By the way, George Tenet the other night in Michigan said that it was wrong to invade Iraq.

Oil hit a new high.

The Dow dropped 108 pts today.

Not only do I hope Kerry wins. I hope he wins by a substantial margin so the transition will be quick and clean without throwing the election into the courts.

Here is a longer list of noted republicans either endorsing Kerry or announcing they will not vote for Bush.
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Republicans_for_Kerry_2004

The anger and obnoxious response from the right makes sense, Dan, and don't take it personal. Its not that they dislike you per se (although some do think that any vote against their guy is treason). Its that they're afraid. See, they know that if the incumbent rule is correct and in play, Bush loses. So whatever they can, they have to convince themselves that you are not a typical undecided.

But as James Zogby noted, you ARE the typical undecided. Like other undecided, you don't like Bush at all, but don't trust Kerry. Like other undecideds, you're "re-elect" number was pretty low. And like Josh Chafetz and Governor Ventura, you're coming home to Kerry as Zogby, Blumenthal, Tuxiera, and others predicted.

Now perhaps you aren't the typical undecided. After all, you are not undeducated, and the typical undecided is. But if that's an irrelevant difference, then this election is falling out of their reach, and you symbolize that. And this is why they're angry.

It's not personal.

Kerry-Edwards for a Stronger America :).

Dan,

I suppose epistemology is not part of normal Red-America vocabulary, but for those of us who understand the concept the Bush world view is extremely disturbing.

It's a dangerous world. And there are few things more frightening than realizing that your leaders live in a fantasy world where they believe what they want to believe instead of what facts and reason would indicate.

Thank you for remaining a member of the Reality-Based Community.

I'm a tad surprised. I never figured you for a Republican.

There still is time left in the election. Don't be surprised if, before your vote is cast in stone, you find that Bush is like the Sox and Kerry like the Yankees. We may be three down, but it's not over!!!

GEORGE (cont'd): Attaboy, Clarence.

Dan..."I can't vote for a president who doesn't believe that what he believes might, just might, be wrong"...but I don't think that Bush does have this kind of mental rigidity. For example: he went into office believing that nation-building was a bad idea but was led by events to undertake a nation-building task of momentous proportions.

And where is the evidence that *Kerry* is willing to consider that *he* might be wrong? Talking endlessly about nuance doesn't necessarily that one can really understand nuances, still less that one can resolve them into unambiguous decisions when action must be taken.

Clem..."I suppose epistemology is not part of normal Red-America vocabulary"...this kind of intellectual arrogance continues to drive large numbers of people away from the Democratic Party.

Iran's support for Bush? Wrong!
The pro-hard-line Iranian group has been actively campaigning for Kerry. One of the fundraiser is actually a close frined of Rafsanjani family and their main goal is to lift the embargo against Iran. Apparently they think that Kerry will do just that. The Kerry camp has identified Mr. Nemazee as having raised more than $100,000 for the senator's campaign. Last year, Aalaei married a 35-year-old recent immigrant from Iran named Susan Akbarpour, whom the Kerry campaign also lists as having raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign.

In just six years since coming to the United States on a tourist visa from Iran, Akbarpour has started a newspaper, a magazine and, most recently, a trade association whose goal, she tells Insight, is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran.

"Susan Akbarpour was a journalist in Iran, where she was close to Faezeh Hashemi, the daughter of [former president Ali Akbar] Rafsanjani," says student activist Aryo Pirouznia. "She has done programs on Iranian television praising Faezeh Hashemi, and demonstrated against pro-freedom groups in California when Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi came to Los Angeles in September 2000." Rafsanjani's daughter was a member of the Iranian Parliament until recently. Her faction, while hailed as "reformists" by pro-regime activists, has never pressed for an end to clerical rule and is widely believed to have served as a foil for hard-liners such as Hashemi's own father.

Here is the complete link to that news from an Iranian news ( http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=03&d=01&a=11)

I am not a Republican by the way. I just support Bush becuase at the end we will appreciate his effort in trying to change the geopolitical map in the Middle East and ultimatly the "little people" will benefit. My whole family lives there and I have a high intrest to see the war succeeds.

Reg: Much better argument on who to vote for here: ">http://windsofchange.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/3516

That's the trackback ping link. The link you meant to use is Armed Liberal's post here. He also finally hopped off the fence.

Of course, I'm a little bit more partial to a counter-argument that A.L. linked earlier. :)

So you're voting for Holbrooke?

It sounds a lot better than saying you're voting for Kerry. At least in my book.

Now that you've endorsed Kerry, will you reveal the anonymous Ambassador that had you on second thoughts about Kerry. Maybe you'll be receiving another letter.

next time the government is looking for a monday morning quarterback

In the reality-based community we call this accountability, you may want to look into it.

>Bush is like the Sox and Kerry is like the Yankees

Oh, come now. It's the BOSTON Red Sox, after all.

Commendable choice, Dan. I have my reservations about Kerry, too, but I think on balance there's just no way he could be worse than Bush Jr. John Mearsheimer is with you on this one, too, as I'm sure you know, already. What we need is some "reality-based" thinking in foreign policy right now, and Kerry I think will give it to us.

Hoo 2:39 "I will be interested to see if Kerry has the US Military leave Saudi Arabia as Biden threatened. I thought that the US military out of Saudi Arabia was a key objective of AQ and Kerry would accomplish that as a way of fighting the war on Terror?" Ah, another nonreality based person. I take it you are unaware of the reduced level of troops in the Kingdom. I guess you are unaware of the transfer of installations to Bahrain, Kuwait, etc. I guess you are unaware of the Bush family relationship with the Saudis and their willingness to do whatever they can to keep the Saudi oil flowing thru the fingers of the royal family. Where have you been? Just listening to Fox News??

David Foster,

I think Bush Jr. is still against nation building, look at jow screwed-up Iraq is.

That's wierd, Dan, I read the same thing and came to the exact opposite conclusion.

David Gergen just gave a talk here in the Boston area today and said Bush would be on much firmer ground if he just acknowledged what we all know to be true: Aside from intelligence failures about WMD, the biggest mistakes in Iraq have been in the post-conflict stage.

If he'd made that mea culpa and said "We didn't adequately prepare for it and things are not going exactly to plan but we know you're concerns and are going to do better," he'd be in better shape in allaying people's fears about the future.

As it happens, people are scared of both candidates.

What will a second Bush Administration be like? Is he going to try to invade Iran or North Korea? What's going to happen in Iraq? Is the next four years going to be like the last?

While Kerry as a Senator has a record of dovishness, he's never been President after 9/11 in which things changed for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Any when you look at the record of this White House and how things have been run, the foreign policy-making process appears to be broken with inadequate planning and insufficient responsiveness to facts on the ground.

The choices that have been made after the Afghanistan war have largely been bad ones -- switching from Afghanistan to Iraq, starting the military action without a plan in place for the aftermath, not enough troops deployed in the field, little reconstruction funds spent, large-scale diplomatic failure in building a robust coalition to fight and finance the war.

At some level, Republicans who are not idealogues have to acknowledge that things look bad on the ground and our options are rather unattractive. Maybe the siege on Fallujah will yield fruit as the Wall Street Journal believes, but I'm afraid that's wishful thinking.

I'm a Kerry supporter but also backed the war, and a real honest bipartisan debate would acknowledge that we're in a big f-in mess that we brought upon ourselves. I don't think the Bush team is willing to listen.

So, if you're a concerned conservative, I think you can support Kerry and know that political weakness will force him to govern as a centrist. While Bush faced down the Democrats and governed like a radical, I don't think this country wants another wild policy swing. So, the conservative choice in this election is John Kerry and that's not all bad.

(I'm with you on the what about the need to push for democratization in the Middle East. Is Kerry going to be too timid there? Who knows but Spencer Ackerman's piece in the New Republic is some cause for optimism.)

The complaining about Drezner's decision process doesn't fly. Sometimes a person's already made up their mind, but they're the last to know. Seems to me that he ought to be commended for letting his decision immerge through careful deliberation.

And don't begrudge the Bush voters' their screeching. Should Kerry turn out to be as bad as W, a heck of alot of partisan Dems like me will be screeching at the sensible ones who, in 2008, cross party lines to vote for the good of the country, and hopefully tip the balance of the election.

Good God !! Out of around $150 million or so raised by the Kerry, campaign around $100K were raised by someone who apparently thinks that sanctions against Iran don't work. I think that uniltareral sanctions against Iran (outside of military equipment) are useless. I also think economic ties might have encouraged a pro-American business class in Iran and hurt the mullahs.

[ Also, the notion that a 100K supporter will be able to decide policy is rather ludicruous]

Mark Buehner: I suppose you'll want to save that list of predictions in the event of a Kerry presidency and revisit them in a couple of years' time. I have to wonder, though; did Bush's term (and, say, stuff like the war in Iraq) unfold as you would have predicted?

I had known that Thorley Winston was a student of war, but not till now did I know he was a student of the soul. Nor that he has studied Drezner's soul and seen the disingenuousness and insincerity lurking deep within. So deep no evidence of their presence can be adduced. The power of Winston's intuition alone provides all the proof needed, and anyone can see just how much credence his conclusions deserve.

Too bad, Dan. With this disclosure, you'll never work in this town again. No more sweet jobs working on Republican presidential transitions. Oh, and do you think a Democratic administration will ever hire a libertarian-leaning U of C guy? Ha ha.

Hope you like the academy, Drezner, because public policy work is out for you.

I can't take seriously anyone (Kerry, et al) who proposes greater international presence as a solution to the mideast problems or the war on terror. The international community and the UN did nothing in Rwanda (800,000 dead), or Sudan where genocide is ongoing and the UN is having a hard even passing a resolution against the genocide. If the "international" community can't do anything about simple genocide it is foolhardy to expect them to do anything useful with something as complex as nation building.