The tragedy for Rather, Oliphant, Krugman and Co. is that even if the memos were authentic nobody would care. Their boy Kerry had a crummy August not because he didn't hammer Bush for being AWOL in the Spanish-American War but because the senator's AWOL in the present war. Big Media are trashing their own reputations in service to a man who can never win.

From ABC News:

HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."

Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".

Andrew Sullivan writes:

REAGANITES VERSUS BUSH: Doug Bandow joins the growing throng of principled conservatives unwilling to give Bush a second term. Money quote:

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.

One wonders why this kind of piece isn't published by the Weekly Standard or National Review.

ME Uh, maybe because they disagree? These little jabs get so tiresome. Note the implied lack of principle of those who don't join the "throng."

Moreover, while I can't speak for the Standard, National Review (and NRO) have criticized many different aspects of Bush's conservatism. How many time does Ramesh have to write cover stories lambasting Bush's big government conservatism for NR to get credit for them?

Also, it just strikes me as silly to suggest -- as Andrew so often does -- that a "principled conservative" must prefer John Kerry as President (during a war). Can't a principled conservative say, "Golly I don't like This and I don't like That but Bush is obviously preferable to Kerry"?

I thought part of traditional conservatism was a certain degree of realism about taking the world as you find it. I respect Bandow and others who disagree with me on this, but I reject completely the idea that a "principled," "traditional," "fiscal" or any other label Andrew conjures requires voting for -- or otherwise hoping for -- the election of the far more liberal presidential candidate. What bothers me about Sullivan's swipes at conservatives who disagree with him is the impulse to whip the troops into line by telling them there's no room for disagreement. How many times has Sullivan crafted sentences which say that it's "obvious" that "no" "fiscal" conservative can vote for Bush? For all his lamenting of "popular front conservatism" it sometimes seems that Andrew's real gripe is that he can't dictate the precise terms of a Popular Front -- led by him.

In 1992, Today dropped an invitation to Richard E. Burke, a former Ted Kennedy aide who wrote a book titled The Senator, which claimed that Kennedy used the drugs cocaine and amyl nitrate in nightclubs and had regular sex with interns. Said then-Executive Producer Jeff Zucker: "In reading it over and seeing the way it was being portrayed by tabloid television, it didn't feel right for us."

Apparently, a book alleging cocaine use by Ted Kennedy is a serious charge which requires serious evidence before it makes NBC's air, while a book alleging cocaine use by George W. Bush at Camp David is fantastic grist for a three-part interview.

I've been getting many emails from readers (and I'm sorry I haven't responded personally to them all yet, I hope to) who honestly love reading NRO but who honestly don't buy that we need money. Heck, why would you believe it? The problem, I'm told, is that NRO looks too good. The product is too good. How can a full-fledged magazine come out every weekday, with treats for the weekend too, and not be poshly rewarded?

Well, we're rewarded in good feedback, impact on the Hill, in Baghdad and elsewhere, but that, you see, is why we are as good as we are. Because we believe in it. We care about the product because we know it is worthwhile. There are people here who have given up holidays and weekends and, goodness knows, many a weeknight, to work to bring you the best we can on a shoestring budget. NR has always been that way. And now, filling the gaps that a fortnightly necessarily leaves, that's what NRO does, with mostly the same, shared staff, and shared budget. Everyone familiar with National Review--I know some of your are happy, long-term subscribers--knows of its financial limitations and its need to husband its resources. That's reality, the nature of the opinionjournalism beast. And yet, because this is about a mission and a philosophy, the sages of National Review have made a choice to put money into NRO--necessary deficit spending--because they know it's the right thing to do. Everyone at NR knows the vital importance of National Review Online, this daily, hourly, near-universally accessible clearinghouse/buzz machine-or cyber think tank, as Mark Levin puts it in his audio message. The impact that NRO has had on the American political and cultural scene had made investing in it a necessity. But it is an investment that had put a tremendous burden on our whole National Review operation. NR has never made a profit in its 50 years of existence-and NRO isn't helping matters.

A few people have asked me: Should I give to NRO or the starving kids in Ethiopia? Different levels there, but I'd give to both. I do. I'm not trying to put us on the same plane as a group that puts food in a child's mouth but I would like to think that we have done a little something to advance some crucial, life-and-death issues. I know we have. I wouldn't waste my time if there weren't a real-world point to this all. I don't think any of us would.

In fact, you'd be amazed how many NRO authors have given money in the past few days of the fundraising drive. And, I tell you, these are mostly people who are not in comfortable offices themselves-they're writing while the kids are asleep and sending their work in the wee hours, being edited in the wee hours-and all hours. Why go through the trouble-and spend money, too? Because they know it works. And they also know they can't get the kids off no-frills ice cream for the summer with the NRO pay. They know firsthand we're not messing around with money.

Anyway, I do apologize for all the bombardment. But then again, this is all free, and this is a few days of making the case. NRO is some 10-20 pieces a day, continuous commentary and analysis and reporting, with people-you'd be surprised-who write for nothing. Like, as in zero. I'm not whining. No one is. But these are the facts. And this is why we are heartened and sincerely grateful for every contribution that comes our way. Thanks for hearing us out and thanks for considering adding your financial support to NRO. And, yes, if your NRO-reading cousin happens to be a millionaire, you might nudge him a little!

worth noting, weather seems identical to Sept 11th, just a beautiful day on Wall Street. I wonder how many people remember what a fantastic day that was until... I'm a fall/spring guy, it was one of those days that make you happy you got out of bed. I'm splitting work after the open, picking up the kids, go have a family weekend. These days can't be wasted.

Funny moment from the Indianapolis Colts AT the New England Patriots tonight (in Foxboro, MA). In the fourth quarter on one drive the Colts get a good spot on third and 1 for a first down and then a questionable Pass Interference call in the end zone, but Edgerrin James fumbles at the 1-yard line on the next play, giving New England the ball with a 3 point lead and 3 minutes left. Here's the commentary:

John Madden: "That's what you call a flip-flop"

Al Michaels: "Well we're in the right state for that, John."

As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the 60 MINUTES report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts. As importantly, 60 MINUTES also interviewed close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian. They confirm that the documents reflect his opinions and actions at the time.

Bush beats Kerry on the economy (4 points), Iraq (16), education (4), taxes (10), the war on terrorism (22!), the Supreme Court (10), and relations with other countries (10). He's down only 3 on health care, down 5 on helping the middle class, and down 2 on creating jobs. He's even beating Kerry (by one point) on "understands the problems of people like you." Republicans should really enjoy this moment.

Also, the number of people who are satisfied with the country's situation has pulled even with the number who are dissatisfied--it's 49-49. And by 4 points, people think Bush has done more to unite than divide the country.

A majority feels that the war in Iraq was worth fighting, that it is part of the war on terrorism, and that we are safer than before Sept. 11.

1. Lots of stuff Bush backers will like, but note that the candidates are tied among registered voters in swing states.

2. Kerry's got a net-unfavorable rating. Only 36 percent of voters had a favorable view of him, compared to 42 percent with an unfavorable one. He was 51-32 favorable at the beginning of August--he's gone from a 19-point surplus to a 6-point deficit on the question. (The article does not make it clear whether these are registered-voter or likely-voter ratings.)

From a reader (I've gotten many like it):

We still have an IBM selectric in the office. I powered it up and typed at bit. The Letter Gothic ball has no smaller superscript "th". Interestingly, the repairman's sticker and phone number was on the machine. I called, just now. He was working on one when I spoke to him. He said positively, no ball he has ever seen has had a "th" together. He said, too, that it can't work as there are no keys on the typewriter with a "th". I suggested the 1/4 or 1/2 (which is available) could have been a substitute key if the ball had a "th" or "st", he said no. He mentioned that NASA approached him, years ago, to see about symbology (math symbols etc.) balls that could work. He couldn't help them with that.

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg,
On this issue of whether or not the CBS 60 Minutes documents are forged, I cannot help drawing an analogy to poker. Anyone who has caught on to the new poker "craze" and watches Texas Hold'em tournaments on TV (or participates in tournaments themselves) is likely to come across the term "free-rolling". This term basically describes a situation where one player has nothing to lose, but much to gain. An example would be when two players, one of whom has committed all of his chips to the pot, have essentially identical hands, let's say they both have a pair of aces with their first two cards. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the two hands being a draw, and the two players splitting the pot evenly. However, when the "flop" (three cards, faced up) comes out, all three cards are spades. Now, the person who is holding the ace of spaces is free-rolling. If one of the next two cards is a spade, he wins the entire pot with a flush. Otherwise, he splits the pot. He cannot lose.

Conservatives are "free-rolling" right now with regards to the authenticity of these documents. There's still only a relatively small chance that we'll win the "pot", but it's still fun waiting to see those next two cards get turned over.

Getting lots of these:

Jonah -

This can be easily resolved. Show one other memo from the unit from the
same timeframe about a different subject (alternatively, another
original, not copy, from Killian's file, since it ight have been a
personal typewriter or one from his office) with the same typeface.

All the other docs regarding Bush in the AF use plain old typerwriter
font.

H. RES. 757

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 8, 2004

Mr. HYDE (for himself and Mr. LANTOS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, while Americans were attending to their daily routines, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth was prevented from also being used as a weapon against America by brave passengers who placed their country above their own lives;

Whereas three years later the country continues to, and shall forever, mourn the tragic loss of life at the hands of terrorist attackers;

Whereas by targeting symbols of American strength and success, these attacks clearly were intended to assail the principles, values, and freedoms of the United States and the American people, intimidate the Nation, and weaken the national resolve;

Whereas three years after September 11, 2001, the United States is fighting a Global War on Terrorism to protect America and her friends and allies;

Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and the international community to lead a third terrorist regime in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas the United States is reorganizing itself in order to more effectively wage the Global War on Terrorism by transforming the Department of Defense, sharpening the Federal Bureau of Investigation's counterterrorism focus, strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to coordinate national intelligence activities, and creating a Department of Homeland Security;

Whereas of the senior al-Qaida leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators that the United States Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds of such individuals have been taken into custody or killed;

Whereas just as significant, with the help of its allies, the United States has disrupted individuals and organizations that facilitate terrorism--movers of money, people, messages, and supplies--who have acted as the glue binding the global al-Qaida network together;

Whereas Pakistan has taken into custody more than 500 members of al-Qaida and the Taliban regime, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi bin al Shibh, conspirators in the September 11, 2001, attacks, and Kahallad Ba'Attash, an individual involved in the planning of the attack on the USS COLE in 2000;

Whereas Jordan continues its strong counterterrorism efforts, arresting two individuals with links to al-Qaida who admitted responsibility for the October 2002 murder in Amman, Jordan, of Lawrence Foley, a United States Agency for International Development Foreign Service Officer;

Whereas in June 2002, Morocco took into custody al-Qaida operatives plotting to attack United States Navy ships and ships of other member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the Strait of Gibraltar;

Whereas the United States and its allies in Southeast Asia have made significant advances against the regional terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the attack in Bali, Indonesia, in October 2003 that killed more than 200 people;

Whereas Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries in Southeast Asia have taken into custody leaders and operatives of local al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist organizations and members of al-Qaida traveling through such countries;

Whereas the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other countries have disrupted cells of the al-Qaida terrorist organization and are vigorously pursuing other leads relating to terrorist activity;

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States Government initiated innovative programs, such as the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program and the Container Security Initiative, to extend our borders overseas and to secure and screen cargo before it is placed on ships destined for United States ports of entry;

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security implemented the US-VISIT border security screening system in December 2003 at all air and sea ports of entry, requiring that nonimmigrant visa holders entering the United States be fingerprinted and screened through various criminal and terrorist databases before entry into the United States, and this system will be expanded to land ports of entry in accordance with congressional deadlines;

Whereas since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones;

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center was established, which now fuses, for the first time in United States history, terrorist-related information, foreign and domestic, available to the United States Government for systematic analysis and dissemination to prevent or disrupt terrorist attacks on the United States;

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Screening Center, a multi-agency partnership, was established to integrate the dozens of separate terrorist databases that existed before September 11th into a single terrorist watch list for use by Federal, State, and local law enforcement, intelligence, and border security personnel;

Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States Government has ensured the hardening of cockpit doors on airplanes and greatly expanded the use of armed Federal air marshals to prevent and deter future hijackings that could turn commercial planes into weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas having recognized the need to prevent terrorist organizations from using their resources, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has worked closely with the Department of the Treasury to target 62 terrorist organizations and freeze $125,000,000 in assets of such organizations worldwide used to fund terrorist activities;

Whereas to date United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces have killed or captured 43 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein himself;

Whereas the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies; and

Whereas thousands of families have lost loved ones in the defense of freedom and liberty against the tyranny of terror: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) extends again its deepest sympathies to the thousands of innocent victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, their families, friends, and loved ones;

(2) honors the heroic actions and the sacrifices of United States military and civilian personnel and their families who have sacrificed much, including their lives and health, in defense of their country in the Global War on Terrorism;

(3) honors the heroic actions of first responders, law enforcement personnel, State and local officials, volunteers, and others who aided the innocent victims and, in so doing, bravely risked their own lives and long-term health;

(4) expresses thanks and gratitude to the foreign leaders and citizens of all nations who have assisted and continue to stand in solidarity with the United States against terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;

(5) discourages, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to confuse the Global War on Terrorism with a war on any people or any faith;

(6) reaffirms its commitment to the Global War on Terrorism and to providing the United States Armed Forces with the resources and support to wage it effectively and safely;

(7) vows that it will continue to take whatever actions necessary to identify, intercept, and disrupt terrorists and their activities; and

(8) reaffirms that the American people will never forget the sacrifices made on September 11, 2001, and will never bow to terrorist demands.

It's looking, to me at least, that the forgery story is, as I suspected, too good to be true. But I really don't get the canned or sincere outrage from some liberal readers about entertaining the suggestion. The theorizing was certainly in good faith and the whole point of the exercise was to enlist the expertise of blog-readers everywhere. Why is this so scandalous or objectionable? I have no idea. It's not like I said "prove so-and-so isn't a pedophile." The theory is that "60 Minutes" had been duped. Such things have happened before you know. I still think it's possible, just not probable.

As for me saying I don't much care about the substance of the story -- i.e. Bush's behavior 30 years ago -- that happens to be the truth. I don't care that much. My conclusion has long been that Bush served enthusiastically for the first few years of his service, as Byron York has reported, and then he took a more laid back approach because the Guard had become more laid back about such things as the Vietnam war was winding-down. This doesn't make him a deserter but it does suggest that he was too unserious when he was younger. I know there are arguments on both sides, but I really honestly don't care very much. This allegation was made in 2000 and before and most people have drawn their own conclusions. Bush never touted his Vietnam era service as a reason for him to be president. John Kerry has in spades to the almost complete neglect of a 20 year Senate record. That's why Kerry's service and protesting is relevant. For all of these people who thought Clinton's behavior during Vietnam was a non-story to suddenly be scandalized by Bush's strikes me as remarkable chutzpah.

So that's why I was much more intrigued by the forgery allegation than the substance of the documents themselvs. I make no apologies for it.

From a reader:

Jonah:

Interesting theory, but...

When I was stationed at Patrick AFB (1971-74), I distinctly recall our office (Office of Public Information) had a correcting IBM proportional typewriter along with our standard-issue Selectrics. Nobody wanted to use the damn thing. It was a pain in the butt to use because to backspace you had to use a table that prescribed the number of "ens" for each letter for both upper and lower case. I believe (but I'm not sure) that the typeface was some form of Times-Roman rather than Courrier.

Before my recollections are questioned, I want to assure you that the AF Good Conduct Medal listed on my DD214 is entirely legitimate.

While touting his book, Buchanan's been rehashing the same silly talking point that the GOP's been "hijacked" by neocons (ominously, if variously, defined). One of the things which bothers me the most about this formulation is that it suggests the party's rank-and-file have gone along unwittingly with what Buchanan describes as a neocon hostile takeover. Buchanan's use of this formulation, I think, stems from his need to remain populist and placating to the base of the party because he's become such a politician. "My quarrel isn't with the good people who make up the Republican Party," Buchanan seems to be saying "it's with this alien and hostile force which has taken over the GOP and Bush's brain."

The problem with this -- as I've written many times -- is that it's nonsense. That NYT poll of convention delegates, for example, found that 96% of them agreed with President Bush (and disagreed with Buchanan) that "the United States did the right thing in taking military action." How exactly is this a hijacked party?

I'm reviewing it for TCS. I wondered what his source was for the following passage, on pp. 53-54: "In 1996, Irving Kristol had written: 'With the end of the Cold War, what we really need is an obvious ideological and threatening enemy, one worthy of our mettle, one that can unite us in opposition.' On 9/11 opportunity had knocked. The neoconservatives had a new 'enemy. . . worthy of our mettle' . . ."

So I looked up the Irving Kristol essay in question. I think what Kristol is actually saying is that attempts to understand American foreign policy are doomed to end in frustration since that policy will never be coherent absent such a threat. But whatever Kristol meant--and whatever else he has written--we have reason to doubt that this comment was entirely serious. Here are the lines immediately following the passage Buchanan quotes: "Isn't that what the most successful movie of the year, 'Independence Day,' is telling us? Where are our aliens when we most need them?"

While I have very little interest in the National Guard story, I do find the coverage very interesting -- and often infuriating. It would be very enjoyable to discover that these "smoking gun" files touted by the Globe and "60 Minutes" are in fact forgeries. Here's the best -- and only serious -- case I've seen. My gut says this is too good to be true. But All Hail The Blogosphere if it slays the "60 Minutes" giant on this one.

Also: If you have specialized expertise in fonts, printing, etc. please add your insights to the effort. If they aren't forgeries better to find out as soon as possible and if they are forgeries, well, that would just be so much fun.

Gregg Easterbrook, working from a study of post-collegiate incomes, argues that the value of going to the most selective schools is overrated; Matt Yglesias comments that having the resume that gets admissions officers at those schools interested does matter. What the discussion leaves me wondering is how much having a college diploma matters.

Easterbrook understands that you can't just compare the average wage of graduates of very selective schools to the average wage of graduates of less selective ones. You have to control for student aptitudes to figure out how much of the apparent wage premium from going to selective schools is a function of their having more academically capable students. But when it comes to the premium from going to college at all, he makes no such adjustment. ("Research does find an unmistakable advantage to getting a bachelor's degree. In 2002, according to Census Bureau figures, the mean income of college graduates was almost double that of those holding only high school diplomas.") Yet presumably part of what we think of as a reward to college diplomas is really a reward to high IQs--but those letters don't get a mention in Easterbrook's piece.

While trying to demonstrate a split in the GOP on foreign policy, Peter Beinart writes :

Asked by the Times this week whether the United States should "try to change a dictatorship to a democracy where it can," 41 percent of GOP delegates said yes, while 48 percent said no or that it depends on circumstances.

Leaving aside the merits and demerits of the rest of his argument. I think this stat is pretty weak stuff. Even the most gung-ho "neocons" think it depends on circumstances. In fact, I think it's a bad polling question because "where it can" and "depends on circumstances" overlap each other to a huge extent when you think about it.

Resolved: this is the worst, most disgusting political campaign in modern history. W will win, I think, but how many good people will be scared away from politics. Why would anyone put his/her family through this?

I think Brideshead Revisited is a lovely book. It is lacking, perhaps, in realism, and occasionally too complacently didactic in its religious and political opinionizing; but it is nonetheless a feat of great imaginative integrity. Waugh in that book managed to create an alternative world that has fired the imaginations of many thousands of people.

In fact, Waugh succeeded all too well. Let's leave aside the legitimate literary objections raised by our colleagues, and look at the broader history of the book's reception. I think the declining popularity of "Brideshead" among the conservative rank and file is directly connected to Waugh's success in creating a compelling vision of the good life that conflicts fundamentally with the temper of today's conservatism. Today's conservative, on the whole, views himself as a middle-class Joe Lunchbox fighting against the Smug Elites; for him, the world of "Brideshead" is a place in which he would be far more likely to meet someone like John Kerry than someone like George W. Bush. (I'm thinking now of the conservative joke proposing a Kerry bumper sticker: "Vote for Kerry. He's better than you are.")

I confess that I share, in large measure, this conservative American contempt for societies stratified by social class. But that, I think, makes it all the more a sign of Waugh's achievement that I found his vision in "Brideshead" a highly appealing one.

I'm going to be on the road in October. Here are some confirmed events:

Wittenberg University
October 13,

Dickinson College
October 25

Wabash College
October 27

Details and whatnot to come.

Here's what I don't get. Every liberal pundit and Democratic consultant in the Known Universe has said Kerry must offer a sharp contrast with Bush on the war. Since Kerry's been all over the place -- for, against, against-but-for and for-but-against -- the Dems aren't offering a clear alternative to Bush. But if Kerry's position is really murky gray-on-gray then how can Dems defend telling Kerry to take a position he doesn't hold?

Let's say Kerry's position on Iraq is something like, "it was a tough call, I would have worked the UN and allies more, but at the end of the day it was probably worth doing knowing what we knew then even if it was poorly implented and the post-hoc revelations about intelligence failures are a bipartisan scandal which calls Bush's judgement into doubt." I disagree with that, but that's a perfectly honorable position. Moreover, that's the position Kerry's more or less taken most days of the week since he got the nomination. Now: How do you defend saying that Kerry must declare the war a total disaster and a completely bone-headed decision? Isn't that basically saying the Democratic nominee needs to lie in order to win?

Worse, how can Kerry defend himself for obviously agreeing to follow that advice? This is more than a flip-flop. It's simply a lie for the purpose of seeming resolute when that is the last thing you are.

I have not pondered the question much, but I am skeptical of the "cornu" interpretation: I suspect that the horns represent not Michelangelo's interpretation of a passage from Exodus but rather his effort to provide a visual and emotional correlative for the kind of severe religious sublimity that Moses embodied. A quality that is often discerned in Michelangelo's work is terribilità: a term that is hard to define but that embraces the sublime….What we see in Moses here--Moses the law-giver, Moses the chap who has just had an awful (in the old sense) encounter with God--is the results of an artist's effort to represent visually something that exceeds the boundaries of the representable: the horns are a sort of objective correlative of that overwhelming moral awesomeness: forbidding, grotesque, yet commanding. That, anyhow, is how it appears to me at first blush. (The proper question here, I suspect, is not "What does it mean?" but "How does it feel?" That is, the issue…is less one of symbols and semantics than one of aesthetic force and religious passion.)

From John in Davis, CA:

I had lunch with three Democrats yesterday (not Bush haters but registered Dems and they voted for Gore). Every one of them said they were voting for Bush. One used the 'don't change horses midstream' line, another hated Kerry's abuse of his Vietnam record and the third pointed to Zell's speech as the tide turner for him. I live in Northern California where the Dean bumper stickers still outnumber the Kerry/Edwards ones (saw one today that said Bush=Torture) and I had no trouble finding Bush Democrats. Anecdotal? Yes. Does it mean anything? Probably not. Is this another attempt to get a mention in The Corner...? Of course.

I'm no fan, but I'm glad he came through ok.

But here's what I don't get. The president of the United States is supposed to be among the most medically supervised people in the world. How does he get taken by surprise by 90% blockage in up to four arteries? I mean, from what I understand fifty percent or even thirty pecent blockage is serious enough to take active measures. But somehow, no one knew this medical condition was coming down the pike. Did he just sprout all of this blockage in the last three years? How could the White House docs not know this condition existed?

From a reader:

As a South Dakotan, it saddens me to agree that Pierre is such a bleak town. With the Missouri River dividing the state it becomes very obvious that East River and West River South Dakota are two very separate places and Pierre, though on the east side, is a very West River kind of place. It is a prairie outpost and little more. It is always 10 degrees hotter in the summer and 20 degrees colder in the winter than the rest of the state. Kind of God's little joke. Did you venture into Fort Pierre? Oh, my. You mention the hotel and the "bad" neighborhood surrounding the capital building which is, itself, quite nice, but you don't mention the large number of strip clubs or the scantily dressed skanky looking women with no teeth walking the streets. I'm sure that being a family kind of guy, you politely didn't notice. A former Congressman in South Dakota, who was briefly the Marlboro Man, actually rode a horse into a Pierre bar. No one thought much of it. Just our own little bit of Americana. And yet, I would rather have Pierre represent my state than the horribly up-town wannabe Minneapolis, Sioux Falls.

Email from Pops:

Why can't someone say that it's the wrong war at the wrong time in the right place? Or the wrong war at the right time in the wrong place? Just to kill the cliche! The bad consequences would be just the same.

Getting lots of grief about the a whole Pierre thing. I have no quarrel with those who say there's more to the town than met my eye. Yes, I am sure there's lots of great fishing, pheasant hunting etc there (many of my in-laws come down from Alaska to shoot the pretty birds in South Dakota). Yes, I am sure that judging by the standards of my citified expectations is unfair etc.

But I'm sorry I don't buy this "you're a snob" nonsense. Yes, I suppose I am a snob in many respects, though it's not the word I would choose. But, look, just because I'm from the city/East Coast does not mean I can't tell when a burgh is rundown or not. Like so many once-thriving small towns and small cities in this country, Pierre looks like it's seen better days. The downtown stores look like Wal-Mart et al have inflicted serious damage. The video-poker casinos are everywhere. How is it snobbery on my part to point these things out? Is it un-snobbish to say "I like the way the neon casino signs light up the night sky"? Would you prefer condescension? "Oh, the Best Western is lovely-- by South Dakota standards I'm sure."

On the subject of the Pierre Best Western, by the way, I should say that I suspect they dump the dog owners in the D cellblock where they put us -- right by the railroad tracks. So there might be much nicer bits to the hotel.

Anyway, I've been to plenty of places that are very un-East Coast city-slicker that I like very much. In fact, I'm a big fan of Fairbanks, Alaska where I've spent quite a bit of time and which is geographically and every other way about as far from the Upper West Side as you can get. I agree with Derb's emailer that you need to look beyond the "downtown" facades to get a real sense of the what the community is like and about. But spare me the charges of snobbery when I accurately describe the facades that I saw.

For the record, I think a week out it's clear the speech was a big success and very effective in doing what it needed to do. When the talking point of the Democrats is to call a popular Southern Democrat the Darth Vader of the Party, you know the speech hit center-mass. The gamble paid off. That does not mean it was not a gamble, as the attempts of the media to Buchananify it have demonstrated.

Funny, ha ha, and funny strange.

In a largely interesting and insightful column, David Horowitz takes a needlessly juvenile shot at me. Before admittedly "cribbing" from my column about Zell Miller, Horowitz asserts that "Like several other conservatives Goldberg has gone wobbly under the left’s assault."

C'mon David, poor form. I have no problems with criticisms of my positions. But I think this sort of thing amounts to cheap bravado and bullying on the cheap. How would you know why I came to my position? Are you aware of any leftist "assault" I was subjected to that caused me to go wobbly? Or are you just making that up because it makes your position sound braver and more pure? Since my motives are plain to you, perhaps you could make your own a bit clearer too. Because from my experience the tendency to assume bad motives of those you disagree with is a leftist tendency, as you should know better than anyone. Why can't I be wrong? Why must the answer be that I don't have your intestinal fortitude? If the answer lies in my writing, please send examples.

However, as you should be able to deduce from the plain meaning of my column, I was offering analytical and strategic objections to the speech more than anything else. But even on the substance, am I supposed to bite my tongue on such matters for the cause? By the way, I also said in the Corner that I thought Miller's speech was "fantastic" and never retracted that.

People: Do you think there is any chance you are the last Bush in the White House?

President Bush: No. My dad set, you know, a great example of public service, and he showed that you could go into the political arena with a calue system and come out with the same value system. You can go in as a loving person and come out as a loving person, that politics doesn’t change you. Plus, to serve your nation is a great honor. [But] I can’t tell you who it’s going to be.

Jenna: Not us. [Laughter]

But at that gathering he was also confronted by a supporter who feared that he and Mr. Kerry had not batted away Republican claims about their records.

Katie Simenson, 41, a massage therapist, accused the Democratic ticket of letting Republicans suggest that Mr. Edwards had taken frivolous cases as a lawyer and that Mr. Kerry was a waffler and soft on defense.

"They're going to run you right over and make you look like idiots," Ms. Simenson said.

Mr. Edwards sought to answer, promising " to fight every day between now and Election Day" and assuring her that Mr. Kerry "is strong, courageous and he is a fighter."

"And I like to believe I am the same thing," he said. But Ms. Simenson shook her head.

"We will - don't shake your head! - we will fight,'' Mr. Edwards continued. "No, we will fight every way we know how. But we are fighting for you, we are not fighting with these politicians. George Bush wants to fight with politicians. We are fighting for you. We want to make your life better - don't argue with me, let me finish. We're going to stand up - I let you talk, let me finish - we're going to stand up for the things that we believe in."

Afterward, Ms. Simenson pronounced his answer a "typical politician response," but said she would grudgingly vote for Mr. Kerry.

One thing I find quite notable is Kerry's fealty to his base--not just the liberal party activists, but the Democratic apparatchiks. When they say pick Edwards, he asks, How quickly? When they say, Hit back hard at Bush-Cheney, he does it with that stupid rally. Conservatives, meanwhile, have pleaded with the White House for months to outline a domestic agenda, only to be told, again and again, We're going to wait until the convention and then start spelling it out. No amount of whining made the Bushies budge.

What does that mean for now? I think the obvious thing for Kerry to do is to hit Bush on Social Security. Ideally, he would wait until the closing days of the campaign to take that tack--as Gore did in 2000, when his ads were pretty effective. But I don't think that Kerry has the luxury of waiting given the restiveness of his base.

I still think the electorate is evenly divided, albeit tilting toward the Republicans. Kerry cannot afford to have a large number of his supporters conclude that he has lost. Challengers can find their backers getting demoralized more easily than incumbents can, unless the incumbent's situation is as grim as 1992. If Kerry starts to look like a loser, he will start losing voters to Nader. He's got to take his best shots starting now.

I don't want to start a big brouhaha, but I gots to keep it real. I haven't been to too many state capitals -- maybe 20 -- but I suspect that Pierre (pronounced Peer) might be the most, um, well, "modest" -- i.e. grim -- state capital in the country. Again, I could have driven through a bad part of town. But, for example, we drove around the Capital building which shouldn't be a bad neighborhood. And I asked a teenager changing the sign on a movie theater what the best hotel in town was and he directed me to the Best Western. It was a fine Best Western, though our dog-friendly room was fairly grim. But is that really where they put up the fat-cat lobbyists? The whole place seems to have a very run-down feel. Lots of "casinos" and liquor stores. On the other hand the state itself is growing on me. The Black Hills really are beautiful and I'm sorrying to have skipped Deadwood this time.

From the AP:

In West Virginia, Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, gave Kerry a rifle as a gift. Kerry, a self-described gun-owner and hunter, quipped: "I thank you for the gift, but I can't take it to the debate with me."

We are in Chicago this morning, about to get on the road. Thanks in advance for offers of cocktails, coffee etc. But we are on a mission; to eat at as many Culver's as possible! No, just kidding, to get home already. I'm exhausted, Lucy's exhausted, Jessica's falling apart and Cosmo keeps saying after each farm we pass, "You can just drop me off here."

The Labor Day traffic yesterday was particularly brutal.

I'm writing for the first time to the Corner because this post gave me the chills. I'm a student at NYU, one of the most liberal strongholds in one of the most liberal cities in the country. I have experienced several similar occurrances over the past year, and am continually amazed at the level of quiet support for Bush. Although nearly every single political gathering at NYU has a drastically liberal slant, there are more members of the College Republicans than College Democrats. Although our students lead protests and participate in die-ins, there are invariably twice as many people quietly disgusted with their actions than vocally supporting them. Volunteering at the convention, I spoke with numerous police officers, one of whom spelled it out for me very succinctly. "I'm 16 hours deep in a 20 hour shift, and I spent the first half of it being harassed, cursed at, and attacked by protesters over on Eighth Ave. One of them bit me on my hand, so I got sent back here to wat ch over the delegates for the second half of my shift. Since I showed up, I've gotten nothing but smiles, thank yous, and salutes from these delegates. One of my friends just offered to relieve me, but I told him I didn't mind staying around for a while longer. I voted for Gore last time, and Clinton before him, but I'm voting for Bush this time, without a doubt." Hearing that made up for all of the vitriol I've had to deal with being a Conservative at NYU.

These are the elegant designations given by Michael Ledeen and Rod Dreher to conservatives who had reservations about Sen. Zell Miller's speech last week. Ledeen writes, "I was frankly very discouraged to see so many of our people openly wondering whether it was a mistake to permit the unwashed to see a man who was angry about seeing his party go down the rathole."

I know of two conservatives who expressed concerns about the Miller speech: Rich Lowry and me. I'll speak only for myself. I didn't worry too much about the political impact of the speech. I just thought that the speech could have been just as strong politically--and given "the unwashed" as good a chance "to see a man who was angry about seeing his party go down the rathole"--if it had not included a few noxious passages. Miller could have pointed out that neither Kerry nor Edwards had acknowledged our troops' role in ending tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq--that would have been tough, but fair. Instead, he more or less suggested that it was wrong for the Democrats to try to unseat the president. (It's as though conservatives, tired of being subjected to false attacks for allegedly calling all opposition to Bush unpatriotic, finally decided just to go ahead and make that attack in reality.) That's not a reason to vote against Bush, as Miller's most overheated critics suggest. But the speech is worth criticizing on the merits, whether or not it helped Bush politically.

I am a northeast Pennsylvania resident who also happens to work up the road from the stadium where Bush made his first post-convention appearance.

As expected, security was tight, traffic was a nightmare, and those of us who had to work had to find ways to get around it. To make it possible I left for work at 5 am this morning. Since we're a bank operations center, I just didn't have the option of saying "another day, time to play hooky."

Groggy and tired, I arrived at the location at 5:45 and was amazed to see the traffic already backing up. The poor officers who arrived at 4:30 am to handle a Presidential appearance at 9:15 were smiling and waving us on. The organization as they tried to route those of us who had to get to work and at the same time direct those who were determined to get to the stadium was difficult, impossible at times, but well-done and determined.

And I found I was astonished. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area is a renowned Democratic stronghold, run by a political machine that's been in place for decades. Where did all these Republicans come from? How did they fill every one of the 18,000 seats they could? Why would 18,000 people (and more if they could have) come out in the pre-dawn darkness to hear a speech? Why did students from the University of Scranton arrive at the airport at 12:30 this morning to greet the President and First Lady and show their support? Why did even more crowds see him off at the airport this morning - unable to get to the stadium but needing to cheer him on?

Why did the total number of protestors at the stadium, in this Democratic town, number 3 whole people? Even the newspapers seem incredulous.

And then it occurred to me. There's a base of support that's farther and wider then realized. That people are quietly supporting Bush, keeping to themselves because they're unwilling to find themselves a part of the vitriolic smear and attack debates launched by those who hate him. That they walk away from political argument because you can't talk to someone who rants, but their silence doesn't mean agreement.

CHRIS WALLACE: But let's look, for instance, at the 1980s and the Reagan build-up, because I have a copy here of a press release that John Kerry, the Senate campaign in 1984, put out, in which he said he wants to cancel the MX missile, he wants to cancel the B-1 bomber, he wants to cancel Star Wars. Now, we have a lot of more perspective now than we did then. But it turned out those were precisely the weapons that helped defeat the Soviet Union and led to the end of the Cold War. I mean, at a critical point in the 1980s, John Kerry, wasn't he wrong on the national security and what the central issue was at the time?

DICK GEPHARDT: Well, I don't want to back and debate what was going on in the 1980s...

WALLACE: But it does speak to his judgment, sir.

GEPHARDT: Well, the truth is the Soviets defeated themselves. Even without the MX missile, we...

WALLACE: But don't you think it was under pressure from the U.S.?

GEPHARDT: Well, it certainly was under pressure from the U.S. But their main problem was their economy fell apart because they had a bad system that decayed them from within. I don't think you can argue that if we hadn't had the MX missile, we would not have been able to defeat the Soviets. We were way ahead of them in most of the '80s. But the point I'm trying to make is: John Kerry has consistently, from his days in Vietnam, been a patriot, supported this country, fought for his country, has had good defense policies supporting weapons systems that would keep our people safe. And he's done the same in the fight against terrorism.

I watched the convention in Connecticut at one of the thousands of nationwide "Party for the President" events. The host picked my name out of a box and I won a Bush/Cheney hat and put it on. I hate hats, but oh well. Driving home, I hit a sobriety checkpoint set up in honor of the new .08% law.
Cop: "Where are you coming from?"
Me: "A party ... watching the convention."
Cop: (Pauses, looks at hat) "Did you do any drinking."
Me: "Yes."
Cop: "How much?"
Me: "A couple of glasses of wine ... "
Cop: (Casually, as if we were buddies chatting.) "The convention, huh? You're wearing a W. hat. You a Republican?"
Me: (Not sure which was the "right" answer ...) "Yeah ..."
Cop: (Quietly) "I'm a Republican, too. Go ahead home."
In Connecticut, of all places!

I remember a couple of days after September 11 writing in some column or other that weepy candlelight vigils were a cop-out: the issue wasn't whether you were sad about the dead people but whether you wanted to do something about it. Three years on, that's still the difference. We can all get upset about dead children, but unless you're giving honest thought to what was responsible for the slaughter your tasteful elegies are no use. Nor are the hyper-rationalist theories about "asymmetrical warfare".

John Kerry came to Steubenville yesterday and quickly realized he was in the wrong city. Steubenville is a city where there are 6 Democrats for every 1 Republican, and the Steelworkers unions are alive and active. You would think this was solid John Kerry territory. The mob used to control Steubenville and now the unions think they do. Well, they are wrong.

The Kerry campaign first scheduled a visit to Steubenville two weeks ago but "scheduling conflicts" came up at the last minute. Oh, and did I mention that Kerry wanted to use a local gun range as a campaign stop, but the owner turned him down? And that the Fire Department Union President told the Kerry campaign that not only would he not organize the union to support Kerry at the rally, but that he was supporting President Bush! The Kerry campaign took for granted that this area was sown up. Mistake number one. So they rescheduled the campaign trip when Franciscan University was back in session. Mistake number two.

Before Kerry arrived there was a huge pro-life march led by Franciscan University students, 500 strong. "You can't be Catholic and pro-abortion", read some of their signs. Students and members of local Catholic parishes were full of energy and FoxNews reported that this was the largest protest against Kerry outside of the Democratic Convention. Just picture 500 pro-lifers marching from their college campus to meet Kerry. Where else but in Steubenville, Ohio! Though the Franciscan University did not organize the event, it is well known for its orthodox Catholic education which encourages students to put their faith into action. These students simply cherish their Catholic faith and could not stand to let Kerry use their faith as a political prop. I am proud of my alma mater.

….The Kerry campaign not only made a mistake in their timing, but they also chose to hold the rally in a public park which should be open to all the public. Mistake number three. The police chief, sheriff, and mayor all agreed with me that protesters and their signs would be allowed inside the Kerry rally site. Freedom of speech is alive and well here in Ohio. The Kerry campaign flipped out!

So, now add another 500 local Bush supporters to the Kerry rally. They tried to turn up the music but they could not drown us out. According to the Herald Star (local press), "The crowd, estimated by officials as 3,500 strong, was almost split in half with people for and against the Massachusetts senator." John Kerry must know he has a problem when over 15% of his audience was booing him. We were respectful and did not heckle him - but upon arrival and when he sought our applause he got something he didn't expect. As the press arrived a feisty nine year old little girl began shouting, "We want Bush!", and we all chanted along. The campaign staff was beside themselves. This is history in the making! Even places like Steubenville are not supporting John Kerry. He is in serious trouble.

My friends, John Kerry will not be coming back to Steubenville. Kerry was visibly shaken when he received boos from the audience.....

One reason why so many Europeans have so little understanding of what is going on in the US is the sheer shabbiness and dishonesty of the coverage by much of their press of what goes on in America. Here’s a prime example (from today’s London Observer):

”Today, by some margin, George W Bush is the most despised figure in America."

Oh, come on.

Now disapproving of George W Bush is fine (if you are so inclined), and so, obviously, is reporting against him, but comments such as that from a senior writer (Robert McCrum) at a well-respected (if misguided) newspaper do no service to their readers.Telling lies never does.

Actually, the whole of McCrum’s piece, basically a series of brief interviews with discontented literati, is well worth reading by any fans of paranoia, hyperbole and the padded cell. Do have a stiff drink first, however.

If you can’t face the thought of wading through it, here’s a brief extract (from Wallace Shawn, the poor man’s Lewis Lapham):

'Part of the problem presented by Bush and his gang is that they are so crude ... When you are confronted with things that are so crudely brutal, the writer's task of elucidating what lies beneath the surface is redundant. These people believe in cruelty, vengeance and brutality. I think Shakespeare would have done very well with these characters. The American government in my lifetime has never been in the hands of people so unbelievably unqualified to run a large country. These guys are out of touch with reality. The most shocking thing about them is that they have only a contempt for the law. That means that they could - and probably will - do anything. This is the scariest I've known it. Part of the problem with these men is that their sensitivities have never been shaped by any civilisation, of East or West - or even the wisdom of primitive cultures.'

Dear oh dear oh dear. Wallace, you poor old fellow, I really think that you need to have a nice lie-down, a glass of warm milk, and good, long soothing nap. That crude Dick Cheney, however, might have other, more uncomfortable, suggestions.

“It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women. We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the Sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people’s sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleagues.”

Meanwhile, here in Britain the Sunday Telegraph is reporting that “an Islamic cleric has announced that he would support hostage-taking in British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.”

Nothing can ever excuse the horrors of the Beslan massacre or the guilt of the revolting butchers who carried it out, but we will, doubtless, be hearing a lot from some sources about how the Russians at least partly brought this massacre on their own heads by their terrible mistreatment of the Chechens over the years.

It is, of course, certainly true that imperial Russian and, far more so, Soviet treatment of the Chechens was disgusting and, during the 1940s, frankly genocidal. Adding to the misery, the brutality of the wars waged by Yeltsin and Putin against their Chechen opposition has, at times, been staggering. Nevertheless, we should be careful about the extent to which Moscow can be blamed for the current nightmare. Russia did offer Chechnya independence in all but name in the mid-1990s. The result was the creation of a slum statelet that combined religious bigotry, military adventurism and aggressive banditry in roughly equal measures.

It’s also worth noting that the guerillas now in the vanguard of the resistance to Moscow want far more than independence for their own country. As this piece from the Sunday Telegraph explains, the objectives of their leader, Shamil Basayev, now include the establishment of an Islamic emirate across a wide swathe of the northern Caucasus.

And is there evidence that these guerillas gets at least some funding from sources linked to the cesspit ‘kingdom’ now known as Saudi Arabia?

Well, what do you think?