Hot New Look

Unwilted has a hot new look. Enjoy!

War of Words

This is circulating in DoD channels via email.  Let's see if the Administration and/or puppets like Fox News start following these suggestions.  Just like they did with the personal versus private accounts for social security.

TrueSpeak Institute
Jim Guirard, President
1129 Cameron Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22308
703-768-0957 Justcauses@aol.com 


Possible CENTCOM, SOCOM, PSYOP, IO, PD & PA (and others)
Action Items in the "War of Words" and "War of Ideas"


1 Seek a modest change in the current DoD Guidance which advises that we
avoid almost all Islamic religious words -- modified merely so as to

a) avoid parroting the false word "Jihad" (holy war) and begin
substituting for it the word for word "Hirabah" -- pronounced hee-RAH-bah and meaning "unholy war" and forbidden "war against society," instead;

b) avoid the words "mujahiddin" (holy warriors) and "shahiddin" (martyrs)and "fedayeen" (those willing to die for, to be martyred for) and begin calling these assassins and suicide mass murderers the "mufsidoon" (evildoers) they really are;

c) allow making the point that according to Islam those "mufsidoon" who
will not cease their evildoing -- and earnestly seek and receive
forgiveness from Allah for their sinful ways -- are almost surely destined not for "Jinnah" (Paradise) but for "Jahannam" (eternal Hellfire), instead.

2 Avoid repeating al Sadr's self-sanctifying "Mahdi Army" label, because
the Mahdi is Allah Himself -- in the Redeemer and Messiah roles -- on
Judgment Day

3 Avoid being demonized by the "death squads" label, by proactively and
pre-emptively referring to the "al Qaeda Death Squads," the "al-Zarqawi
Death Squads," the "al-Sadr Death Squads" and other assorted mufsidoon
(evildoers) by both of these terms

4 Avoid the careless and gratuitous terms "invasion," "war" and "war on
Iraq" and use, instead, such correct terms as the recent "liberation of
Iraq," the ongoing "democratization of Iraq" and the current "peacekeeping" and "reconstruction" missions in Iraq -- all of which are
dangerous and life-threatening but not per se WAR or per se OCCUPATION,
either

5 Shed the negative "occupiers" and "occupation force" labels by
officially renaming the US and Coalition forces -- whose legal status has changed, now that there is an elected Interim Iraqi Government -- and by calling them the International
o "Force For Peace and Stability" (Quwwat al-Salaam wa al-Istiqrar), or
the
o "Force for Peace and Justice" (Quwwat al-Salaam wa al-'Adl), or the
o "Force For Peace and Freedom" (Quwwat al-Salaam wa al-Hurriah)

6 Place the "war of words" issue, even in small ways, on every possible
agenda and in every possible panel discussion and every anti-terrorism
conference, without which it will seldom be seriously discussed at all

7 In due course, organize and schedule a major Public Affairs, Civil
Affairs, Public Diplomacy, PsyOp and Information Operations conference on "war of words" and related "War of Ideas" matters only, or at least
primarily so

8 Create small, highly focused "war of words" working groups within each
of these DoD agencies and disciplines -- and establish an inter-agency
coordination, as well

9 Select only half a dozen principal Arabic and Islamic words (including
the three explained above: Hirabah by mufsidoon destined for Jahannam) on which to focus initially, with other "approved" words and tactics to be prudently added in due course

10 Help to recruit additional scholars and Muslim clerics to contribute
their words of wisdom and truth-in-Islam to the "Hirabah" thesis
work-in-progress compendium previously provided. Current contributors who now number about 25 should be doubled by mid-year, and doubled again by year's end

11 Help to instigate and evaluate the "Hirabah versus Jihad" Q & A format previously provided, in form of a big-prize, high rewards essay contest in selected venues -- probably best in relatively quiet and moderate Muslim World university cities -- with the basic questions to be answered as follows:

o What is going on here --Godly Jihad (holy war) or un-Godly Hirabah
(unholy war)?

o Who are these killers -- mujahiddin (holy warriors) & martyrs or
mufsidoom (evildoers)?

o Where are they headed -- to Allah's Jinnah (Paradise) or Satan's
Jahannam (Hellfire)?

o Are they promoting Sharia (Allah's Law) or Tajdeef Shaitaniyah (Satanic Blasphemy)?

o Finally, provide correct answers to whatever other good-versus-evil
questions in Islam which would strengthen the rationale for the
truth-in-language and truth-in-Islam answers that the contestant has
posited

Black Sun

"What now is the aim of my life? To sit on a rock in the desert and stare at the sun until the sun goes black." --Edward Abbey

Fun with Firefox

I'm having plenty of good clean geek fun going through Firefox Extensions. Really cool, with lots of potential is the stumbleupon extension. I went to a half dozen sites that I like a lot, told it that I like them a lot, and now it is already coming up with suggested sites that pretty much killed my whole evening. I'm sure the spammers will find a way to pollute this, but for now it's a great tool to wade through all the BS on the net and discover new things.

So, You Support the Troops?

I've driven over 3000 miles in the last few weeks over the holidays. And a stereotype has developed. There are a lot of people with ribbon sickers on their cars (usually SUVs) about supporting the troops. Sometimes yellow. Sometimes red, white, and blue.

Typically, the drivers are pricks. They pass in the right lane, they tailgate, they drive while talking on cell phones.

You assholes are not part of the team, not part of the effort. You are the weakest of the weak. You are the sycophants. You want to be part of something bigger than yourselves. You wrap yourselves in the flag without thinking. Yea, troops! Go USA! How exactly are you supporting the troops? Did the three dollar magnet you bought (you don't want to actualy stick something to your car) even help a soldier?

If you really supported us, those stickers would say bring our sons and daughters home. We didn't elect him President, but John Kerry was right 30 years ago when he asked: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake."

Iraq was a mistake. Bush is a mistake. Support the troops, fuck the war. If you love Bush too much to actually oppose the war, give some money to the USO rather than buy a bumper sticker. True, you won't have any public recognition of the fact that you supported the troops. But this never was about YOU anyway, was it?

Basic MP3s

If you are going to steal music (as opposed to buying it for $1 from itunes or for $.05 from mp3search.com) there is audiofind.ru. Quality is only so-so. And you have to make it through the russian (but the webpage is set up like any other -- click where you think you should and you will be right). The selection is decent, especially if you like mainstream stuff. I don't know how reliable it is or if it is some sort of scam. But seems to be a well-organized way to download a song or two (say you want the latest Britney single but not a whole album). Free mp3s from our favorite country for vodka, women, and songs: Russia. Cheers to each!

In Honor of Thirty

I Don't Wanna Grow Up by Tom Waits:

When I’m lyin’ in my bed at night
I don’t wanna grow up
Nothin’ ever seems to turn out right
I don’t wanna grow up
How do you move in a world of fog
That’s always changing things
Makes me wish that I could be a dog

When I see the price that you pay
I don’t wanna grow up
I don’t ever wanna be that way
I don’t wanna grow up
Seems like folks turn into things
That they’d never want
The only thing to live for is today

I’m gonna put a hole in my TV set
I don’t wanna grow up
Open up the medicine chest
And I don’t wanna grow up
I don’t wanna have to shout it out
I don’t want my hair to fall out
I don’t wanna be filled with doubt
I don’t wanna be a good boy scout
I don’t wanna have to learn to count
I don’t wanna have the biggest amount
I don’t wanna grow up

Well when I see my parents fight
I don’t wanna grow up
They all go out and drinking all night
And I don’t wanna grow up
I’d rather stay here in my room
Nothin’ out there but sad and gloom
I don’t wanna live in a big old tomb
On grand street

When I see the 5 o’clock news
I don’t wanna grow up
Comb their hair and shine their shoes
I don’t wanna grow up
Stay around in my old hometown
I don’t wanna put no money down
I don’t wanna get me a big old loan
Work them fingers to the bone
I don’t wanna float a broom
Fall in love and get married then boom
How the hell did I get here so soon
I don’t wanna grow up

Kenko's Essays in Idleness #29

"When I sit down in quiet meditation, the one emotion hardest to fight against is a longing in all things for the past. After the others have gone to bed, I pass the time on a long autumn's night by putting in order whatever belongings are at hand. As I tear up scraps of old correspondence I should prefr not to leave behind, I sometimes find among them samples of the calligraphy of a friend who has died, or pictures he drew for his own amusement, and I feel exactly as I did at the time. Even with letters written by friends who are still alive I try, when it has been long since we met, to remember the circumstances, the year. What a moving experience that is! It is sad to think that a man's familiar possessions, indifferent to his death, should remain unaltered long after he is gone. "

News Holiday

I decided to take a news holiday after the election. First, I wanted to absorb it all myself and form my own opinions about what happened and why with as little influence from all the talking heads as possible. Second, I needed to be a more well rounded person again. So I've managed to do a bit more non-news reading, I'm picking up my guitar more. And I'm not proud of this, but I got the new Grand Theft Auto video game and am releasing all my agression by violently killing and cursing at innocent bystanders. It is a thoroughly offensive and wonderful game.

Courage, Shipmates, Courage

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over,
their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight,
restore their government to its true principles.

"It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurringthe horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt.

"But if the game runs sometimes against us at home
we must have patience till luck turns
and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the
principles we have lost, for this is a game
where principles are the stake.
Better luck, therefore, to us all; and health, happiness,
and friendly salutations to yourself."

-- Thomas Jefferson , 1798.

John Kerry for President

Unwilted is endorsing John Kerry this year. There are thousands of reasons NOT to vote for President Bush. Instead, I just wanted to briefly discuss a few reasons to vote FOR Senator Kerry:

1. His environmental record is nearly without flaw. This issue has been overshadowed during the campaign, but the contrast between the two could not be more dramatic.

2. He had the guts to both fight in Vietnam and then oppose the war when he got back. I'm proud of him for both.

3. Integrity. The worst thing the Bush campaign has been able to dig up on him is that maybe the wounds he recieved in Vietnam really were not that bad! They have not been able to find ANY skeletons in his closet.

4. He's a thinker with a sense of history.

5. He skiis, windsurfs, and mountain bikes. And unlike the President, he drinks beer! He's more like me than President Bush (if that matters).

From the American Conservative Magazine

Kerry’s the One

By Scott McConnell

There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?

The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.

But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.

George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.

From Salon.Com

Salon.com article by Doug Bandow: Why Conservatives Must Not Vote For Bush

Sept. 10, 2004 | George W. Bush presents conservatives with a fundamental challenge: Do they believe in anything other than power? Are they serious about their rhetoric on limited, constitutionally restrained government?

Bush appears to have remained strong in the presidential race by rallying conservatives behind him. In his convention acceptance speech he derided Sen. John Kerry's claim to represent "conservative values" and seized the mantle of promoting liberty at home and abroad.

Indeed, many conservatives react like the proverbial vampire at the sight of a cross when they consider casting a ballot for Kerry. Tom Nugent, a National Review Online contributing editor, wrote: "The last thing the Republican party needs is the reckless suggestion that conservatives vote Democratic." That is mild, however, compared with the American Conservative Union's mass e-mail solicitation headlined "Why Do Terrorists Want Kerry to Win?"

Republican partisans have little choice but to focus on Kerry's perceived vulnerabilities. A few high-octane speeches cannot disguise the catastrophic failure of the Bush administration in both its domestic and its foreign policies. Mounting deficits are likely to force eventual tax increases, reversing perhaps President Bush's most important economic legacy. The administration's foreign policy is an even greater shambles, with Iraq aflame and America increasingly reviled by friend and foe alike.

Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."

Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II." There are few programs at which the president has not thrown money; he has supported massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork barrel projects, dubious homeland security grants, an expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and new foreign aid programs. What's more, says former conservative Republican Rep. Bob Barr, "in the midst of the war on terror and $500 billion deficits, [Bush] proposes sending spaceships to Mars."

Unfortunately, even the official spending numbers understate the problem. The Bush administration is pushing military proposals that may understate defense costs by $500 billion over the coming decade. The administration lied about the likely cost of the Medicare drug benefit, which added $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Moreover, it declined to include in budget proposals any numbers for maintaining the occupation of Iraq or underwriting the war on terrorism. Those funds will come through supplemental appropriation bills. Never mind that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had promised that reconstruction of Iraq could be paid for with Iraqi resources. (Yet, despite the Bush administration's generosity, it could not find the money to expeditiously equip U.S. soldiers in Iraq with body armor.)

Nor would a second Bush term likely be different. Nothing in his convention speech suggested a new willingness by Bush to make tough choices. Indeed, when discussing their domestic agenda, administration officials complained that the media had ignored their proposals, such as $250 million in aid to community colleges for job training. Not mentioned was that Washington runs a plethora of job training programs, few of which have demonstrated lasting benefits. This is the hallmark of a limited-government conservative?

Jonah Goldberg, a regular contributor to NRO, one of Bush's strongest bastions, complains that the president has "asked for a major new commitment by the federal government to insert itself into everything from religious charities to marriage counseling." Indeed, Bush seems to aspire to be America's moralizer in chief. He would use the federal government to micromanage education, combat the scourge of steroid use, push drug testing of high school kids, encourage character education, promote marriage, hire mentors for children of prisoners and provide coaches for ex-cons.

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."

Yet some conservatives celebrate this approach. Kevin Fobbs and Lisa Sarrach of the National Urban Policy Action Council opine that Bush is "a strong leader, a comforter in chief." A comforter in chief?

Why, then, would any conservative believer in limited, constitutional government vote for Bush? It is fear of the thought of a President John Kerry.

Bobby Eberle of the conservative Web site GOPUSA warns, "One can only imagine the budgets that would be submitted by Kerry." President Bush has made the same point, repeatedly charging that Kerry "has promised about $2 trillion of new spending thus far." Maybe that is true, though the cost of Bush's actual performance would be hard to beat. After all, the president initiated a huge increase in the welfare state with his Medicare drug benefit bill. Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute points out that, in sharp contrast to Presidents Reagan and Clinton, "Bush has cut none of the [federal] agencies' budgets during his first term."

Moreover, whatever the personal preferences of a President Kerry, he could spend only whatever legislators allowed, so assuming that the GOP maintains its control over Congress, outlays almost certainly would rise less than if Bush won reelection. History convincingly demonstrates that divided government delivers less spending than unitary control. Give either party complete control of government and the treasury vaults quickly empty. Share power between the parties and, out of principle or malice, they check each other. The American Conservative Union's Don Devine says bluntly: "A rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage" fiscally.

Maybe so, respond some conservatives, but how about the Bush tax cuts? The president tells campaign audiences: "They're going to raise your taxes; we're not." But even here the Bush record is not secure. Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis points to the flood of red ink unleashed by the administration and predicts that tax hikes are inevitable irrespective of who is elected in November. That is, Bush's fiscal irresponsibility could cancel out his most important economic success for the GOP.

For some conservatives, the clincher in favor of Bush is the war on terrorism. Kerry, with more war experience than the current president and vice president combined, "resembles Neville Chamberlain," says Nugent. Answering his own hysterical question, "Why do terrorists want Kerry to win?" David Keene of the American Conservative Union says Kerry would submit to terrorists and "lead the free world to a second Munich," only this time with al-Qaida instead of Adolph Hitler.

Yet Bush's foreign policy record is as bad as his domestic scorecard. The administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, but quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned and elections have been postponed.

Iraq, already in chaos, is no conservative triumph. The endeavor is social engineering on a grand scale, a war of choice launched on erroneous grounds that has turned into a disastrously expensive neocolonial burden.

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims, and no operational relationship with al-Qaida, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the occupation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirements.

Particularly shocking is the administration's ineptitude with regard to Iraq. Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek, "On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq -- troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world."

Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in its most recent study warns that the Iraq occupation has spurred recruiting by smaller terrorist groups around the world. And acting CIA Director John McLaughlin worries that terrorists are plotting "something big" against the United States. For a time the Pentagon considered closing its child care center, lest it become the target of an attack. NRO columnist Goldberg observes that the president's contention that the war in Iraq has made America safer "is absurd." Goldberg backs the war for other reasons, but says it was probably "the risky thing in the short run."

Bush -- not even sure himself whether the war on terrorism is winnable -- has been unable to demonstrate how Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism against America. Instead, he says: "I need four more years to complete the work. There's more work to do to make America a safer place. There's more work to do to make the world a more peaceful place." Alas, there's more work, far more work, to do because of Bush's misguided policies.

A few conservatives are distressed at what Bush has wrought in Iraq. "Crossfire" host Tucker Carlson said recently: "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it." William F. Buckley Jr., longtime National Review editor and columnist, wrote: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

And opposed it he should have. The conflict is undermining America's values. As social critic Randolph Bourne long ago observed, "War is the health of the state." Although the Constitution is not a suicide pact, the so-called PATRIOT Act threatens some of the basic civil liberties that make America worth defending. Abu Ghraib has sullied America's image among both friends and enemies.

Still, there obviously are issues important to conservatives on which the candidates differ. On abortion and judicial appointments, for instance, Bush is clearly superior for conservatives. On business regulation Bush is probably better. For this reason Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation worries that "in punishing Bush, they [conservatives opposing him] may end up punishing the country." The administration has also sacrificed economic liberty on issues such as antitrust, telecommunications and trade.

But these differences in practice may matter little. Not much can be done on abortion given current court rulings and the fact that Bush has won approval of few of his most conservative nominees. Republican senators could limit Kerry's choices just as Democratic senators have limited Bush's choices.

Bush's record has been so bad that some of his supporters simply ask, So what? Bush is "a big government conservative," explains commentator Fred Barnes. That means using "what would normally be seen as liberal means -- activist government -- for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."

But this political prostitution is unworthy of venerable conservative principles. Undoubtedly, reducing the reach of government is not easy, and there is no shame in adjusting tactics and even goals to reflect political reality. But to surrender one's principles, to refuse to fight for them, is to put personal ambition before all else.

The final conservative redoubt is Bush's admirable personal life. Alas, other characteristics of his seem less well suited to the presidency. By his own admission he doesn't do nuance and doesn't read. He doesn't appear to reflect on his actions and seems unable to concede even the slightest mistake. Nor is he willing to hold anyone else responsible for anything. It is a damning combination. John Kerry may flip-flop, but at least he realizes that circumstances change and sometimes require changed policies. He doesn't cowardly flee at the first mention of accountability.

Some onetime administration supporters have grown disillusioned. Sullivan observes: "To have humiliated the United States by presenting false and misleading intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen ... is unforgivable. By refusing to hold anyone accountable, the president has also shown he is not really in control. We are at war; and our war leaders have given the enemy their biggest propaganda coup imaginable, while refusing to acknowledge their own palpable errors and misjudgments."

Those who still believe in Bush have tried to play up comparisons with Ronald Reagan, but I knew Reagan and he was no George W. Bush. It's not just that Reagan read widely, thought deeply about issues and wrote prolifically. He really believed in the primacy of individual liberty and of limited, constitutional government.

In his farewell address to the nation on Jan. 11, 1989, Reagan observed: "I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things." Even when politics forced him to give way, everyone knew what he stood for. Bush's biggest problem, in contrast, is not that he is a poor communicator. It is that he has nothing to communicate. Victory over terrorists, yes -- but then what American really disagrees with that goal? Beyond that there is nothing.

"Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens," Bush says. But you wouldn't know that from his policies. He has expanded government power, increased federal spending, initiated an unnecessary war, engaged in global social engineering and undercut executive accountability. This is a bill of particulars that could be laid on Lyndon Johnson's grave. No wonder "Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about" Bush, says right-wing syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Although anecdotal evidence of conservative disaffection with Bush is common -- for instance, my Pentagon employee neighbor, a business lobbyist friend, even my retired career Air Force father -- for many the thought of voting for John Kerry remains simply too horrific to contemplate. And this dissatisfaction has yet to show up in polls. Fear of Kerry, more than love of Bush, holds many conservatives behind the GOP.

Yet serious conservatives must fear for the country if Bush is reelected. Is Kerry really likely to initiate more unnecessary wars, threaten more civil liberties and waste more tax dollars? In any case, there are other choices (e.g., the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, the Constitution Party's Michael Peroutka and even Independent Ralph Nader).

Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power.

Politics Video

Former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes, the guy who got President Bush into the National Guard, in a short video.

I love Russia

Personally, I'm done with itunes. I have found allofmp3.com, a Russian site that claims to be leagal. I don't know if it is legal for you. I don't know if it is safe (there's probably some risk giving your credit card number to some Russian company). But I'm sold. A similar site is mp3search.ru. I make no money from mentioning either. It was pure luck that I stumbled on them. So far, $35 worth of music (loads of it) and no problems.