Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader spent some time at the Villainschloss watching the President’s speech to the Republican Governors Association last night and it caused him to think for a little while about electioneering.

It looks as though Kerry will be the nominee for the Democrats. Your Maximum Leader believes that the only way Kerry will not get the nomination is if there is either 1) a major Kerry gaffe very soon (highly unlikely) or 2) Democrats start to have “buyers remorse” about crowning Kerry anddecide to go with Edwards (unlikely). Kerry is not a strong candidate in your Maximum Leader’s opinion. He is not a strong candidate because of his extensive Senate record. Kerry has voted on issues. Which means he has opinions which must be defended, endorsed, repudiated, clairified, denied, ameliorated or lied about by himself or his surrogates. And that is bad for him. Think about it. The last person to jump directly from the Congress to the Presidency was John F. Kennedy. And he was only a first termer, rather like John Edwards. (Minus the hottie wife and the huge trust fund from his daddy. Edwards earned his own trust fund via medical malpractice lawsuits. Advantage: Kennedy.) Lyndon Johnson would not have won election to the presidency had Kennedy not been assasinated. When you have a record to run on (or from as the case may be) you have a big liability in our modern electoral process. This is why Governors and non-Washingtonians are more successful. Their records are harder to get at by the national media, and generally not as expansive (as state government just doesn’t deal with many issues that the Federal government - for good or ill - deals with). And we are now beginning to see the Bush campaign go after Kerry on his record. Which leads your Maximum Leader to his next item.

Your Maximum Leader believes that the Bush team started the campaign season a bit too soon. Why not wait until John Edwards started to get a little desperate and started to go after Kerry? Why not let the two of them duke it out some? By coming out against Kerry now, you risk the chance of making Edwards the nominee. (Who, by the way, your Maximum Leader thinks is a much stronger candidate - of the Democrats still running.) By the Bush people going and attacking Kerry, who’s major strength as been the nebulous term “electability;” they threaten to make him appear “less electable.” If he starts looking less electable, perhaps the Democratic primary voters will decide to switch horses (the season is yet young). To your Maximum Leader, this looks like a “strategery” mistake by the Bush Campaign. Sure Edwards was running a clean campaign, but the desperation hadn’t set in yet. And the media hadn’t grown tired of Kerry yet. Just wait a few more weeks. Things could change. Why engage your enemy when you don’t have to fight? (Didn’t Master Sun admonish us to avoid avoidable combat?) It seems that the good Mr. Rove and company just didn’t like seeing the low poll numbers.

Not like the polls mean anything at this point. And we all know (at least your Maximum Leader knows) that any Democrat will get about 40% of the vote and any Republican will get about 40% of the vote - just for being the party nominee. The independents that both sides are looking for are too busy living their lives to care much about the election at this point. They will not focus on the election until September. (August at the earliest.) So just keep your powder dry and wait.

And then there is Ralph. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t know what to think of Ralph Nader. On the one hand your Maximum Leader believes him to be an ideologue with an ideology that is hard to stomach. On the other hand, Nader is an honest ideologue and that is worth a little something. At any rate, your Maximum Leader doesn’t believe that Nader will be much of a factor at all in this race. Especially since he will not be on the ballots of all 50 states. (Sure he says he will, but your Maximum Leader doubts that he will get the organization needed to do it.) Your Maximum Leader also is tired of the whole canard of “he cost Gore the election.” Nader did not cost Gore the election. If Gore had won his putative “home” state of Tennessee, the outcome of the race could have been different. If people weren’t allowed to write-in candidates, the outcome could have been different. If Pat Buchanan hadn’t run, the outcome could have been different. Alas, there are too many radicals on the table to blame poor Ralph fr all of it. Nader will be an interesting diversion from the main race. Sort of like a side-show tent at a carnival. Sure you might be morbidly curious about the two-headed man, or the giant cockroach that eats babies; but really you want to get to the big top and watch the professional clowns.

Carry on.

Driving accross the Wilson Bridge on Sunday, I noticed a column of dark smoke rising up from the DC skyline. Immediately I turned on 1500am, the local 24 hour news channel to see if something bad was going down. No news about anything. By the time we were driving past the Naval Research Lab heading north, accross the Anacostia river from the city, there was no smoke visible anywhere. No clue what caused the smoke. Couldn’t find anything on local news about it.

It’s a different world we live in now. Prior to 9/11, one would assume that it was just a fire. But now, smoke over DC looks ominous.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader took the philospher test commended by the Minister of Agriculture. He found he really disliked the test overall, as it was primarially trying to gauge what vision of morality you (the testee) agree with. Some highlights of your Maximum Leader’s results:

Ayn Rand (100%)
Kant (95%)
David Hume (90%)
Thomas Hobbes (88%)

Your Maximum Leader never thought of himself as an Objectivist. And he certainly isn’t a great adherent of Rand. Kant, Hume, and Hobbes are good company.

Hummm…

Carry on.

I don’t agree with much of what is said in the following article (I am far from a strict constructivist and find the “Civil war was not about slavery” argument silly), but it was an interesting read. The best point they make is that your criteria matter when you are constructing a list of best presidents.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira49.html

With whom o you most agree?

http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/

Smallholder’s answers (He may be shot by the Hobbesian Maximum Leader):
The worst part is that my number two is that darn pesky Frenchman (We were ALL in the resistance! There was no collaberation!).

1. Jeremy Bentham (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (93%)
3. Aquinas (90%)
4. Kant (87%)
5. John Stuart Mill (84%)
6. Spinoza (70%)
7. St. Augustine (70%)
8. Plato (68%)
9. Aristotle (65%)
10. Prescriptivism (64%)
11. Ayn Rand (57%)
12. Epicureans (42%)
13. Ockham (42%)
14. Stoics (42%)
15. Nel Noddings (39%)
16. Nietzsche (18%)
17. Cynics (14%)
18. David Hume (14%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (14%)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63125-2004Feb22.html

We have a new Propaganda Minister* - director boy has risen to the challenge of my taunts (his mother smelt of elderberries) and submitted his first entry:

First, double standards:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16444

Second, a hilarious article about the Office of Special Plans:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

Finally, gay marriage:

Valentine’s Day, that great state holiday
By Bill Maher, 2/14/2004

NEW RULE: You can’t claim you’re the party of smaller government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If there’s one area I don’t want the US government to add to its list of screw-ups, it’s love.

On the occasion of this Valentine’s Day, let’s stop and ask ourselves: What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other?

And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, birthdays are important, too — why not include them in the great document? Let’s make a law that gay pople can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake — you know, to send the right message to kids.

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things, like schools, prison, Social Security — OK, so how about we privatize privacy? If the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what’s their alternative? They can’t all marry Liza Minnelli.

Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people, and encourage it for others. If you’re straight, there’s a billion-five in the budget to encourage and promote marriage — including seed money to pay an old Jewish woman to call up people at random and say “So why aren’t you married, Mr. Big Shot?”

But when it comes to homosexuals, Republicans sing “I Love You Just the Way You Oughta Be.” They oppose gay marriage because it threatens or mocks — or does something — to the “sanctity of marriage,” as if anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked-up, rich or desperate, but in George Bush’s mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing — kind of like what his Dad has with the Saudis.

But at least the right wing aren’t hypocrites on this issue — they really believe that homosexuality, because it says so in the Bible, is an “abomination” and a “dysfunction” that’s “curable”: they believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he’ll stop being gay — because the theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

But the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don’t believe homosexuality is an “abomination,” and therefore their refusal to endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are true believers, but the Democrats are merely pretending that they believe gays are not entitled to the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us. The Democrats’ position doesn’t come from the Bible, it’s ripped right from the latest poll, which says that most Americans are against gay marriage.

Well, you know what: Sometimes “most Americans” are wrong. Where’s the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of “civil union” and “hate the sin, love the sinner,” and say loud and clear: `There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an abomination’ — although that Boy George musical Rosie O’Donnell put on comes close. The only thing abominable about being gay is the amount of time you have to put in at the gym.

But that aside, the law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100 percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay, and that they don’t need re-programming. They need a man with a slow hand.

— Minister of Propaganda

* Director boy has also indicated that he would accept the Ministries of Media or Vice. I’m tempted to add a few other portfolios to the lad (Women scorned? Gentle deflowering?), but thought I might see if the Maximum Leader or Foreign Minister have any ideas. Smallholder and Propaganda’s friendship actually may predate the Maximum Leader’s friendship with the Air Marshal and Poet Laureate, but Propaganda did once share a boot-shoot with the ML and FM.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader liked this Evil Overlord Guide. Thanks to Minion and Lackey for pointing it out. Now to find the author, and kill him…

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wants to pass along some gastronomic advice.

First, if you happen to be in Richmond Virginia and have a hankering for Sushi, go to Akida. It gets the official Maximum Leader seal of sushi approval. It is a small place (at least the one on Robinson Street is). The facility used to be an old street corner pub. But it works well as a sushi place. Great food.

Second, if you have been drinking Glenfiddich for a few hours and decide you need to make a brand change (but not a liquor change); be careful! Do not (repeat do not) pour yourself a double of Ardbeg. Glenfiddich is a wonderful smooth scotch. Ardbeg is wonderful, but is not nearly as smooth. It is full of smoke and fire. It was a bit too shocking a change.

Third, if you are up in Washington DC go to Georgia Brown’s. Your Maximum Leader has been for lunch a few times. But last night he had Georgia Brown’s Executive Chef, Neal Langermann (aided by his stunning assistant Yvonne) cook a private dinner for him, Mrs. Villain, his esteemed Brother and Sister-in-law, and two other close friends. The dinner was not in the restaurant, but at the home of your Maximum Leader’s friends. We stood in the kitchen and chatted with Chef Langermann as he cooked. He shared tips, stories, and some jokes. And it was one of the finest meals your Maximum Leader has ever had. It is a rival to the fabulous time he had at Morimotos last year. Go to Georgia Brown’s, it is well worth your trip. (And it seems that Sunday Brunch is one of the best times to go. They have a huge buffet, and let you have a to-go box before you leave…)

That is all the gastronomic advice for now.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader pronounces birthday “huzzahs!” for George Washington. He was truly first in war, first in peace, and should be first in the hearts of his grateful countrymen. But alas, George now gets rather short shrift in our schools. Your Maximum Leader believes that, as a precondition of graduating from high school, all Americans should read Richard Brookhiser’s Founding Father. While it is not a comprehensive biography of Washington, it is a great “character biography” which discusses why we should care (and love) our Founding Father.

Anyway… Happy 272nd Birthday General Washington. At least one of your grateful countrymen will raise a toast to you this day.

Moving on… Your Maximum Leader presented a challenge to his ministers and minions. Alas, the Poet Laureate is history-illiterate. So rather than attempting to educate himself, he wrote some funnies. And you know, deflecting tough questions with humour is a trait we like in our hominids. So, after your Maximum Leader erases from his imagination the image of Christina Aguilera masterbating in the Oval Office, he will chukle at the Big Hominid’s post.

The AirMarshal started with a good list. But really, Gover Cleveland? He did give us the Baby Ruth…

Still waiting to hear from the Foreign Minister and Minister of Agriculture…

Without further adieu, here is your Maximum Leader’s list, in full:

1) George Washington. The first president, and the overriding shaper of the office. He set down many of the precedents that still function today. He established the cabinet system, and gave shape to the executive branch. He set down the major goals of US foreign policy (shunning entangling alliances) which held until (arguably) the Second World War. He also flexed (for the first time) federal supremacy over the states by putting down rebellions in Pennsylvania.

2) Abraham Lincoln He saved the Union.

3) Franklin Roosevelt Created the modern presidency (characterized by a strong executive). He also created the modern federal government (characterized by not only supreme federal authority but by an all-intrusive federal government).

4) Jmes Knox Polk Your Maximum Leader throws you a fastball here. He has always believed in the greatness of James K. Polk. Polk promised four things would be accomplished during his presidency. 1 - the Indian question in the south would be resolved; 2 - Texas would enter the Union; 3 - California would become part of the US; 4- a northern border with Canada west of the great lakes would be fixed. Polk said if these four things were not done in his four years, he would not seek another term. During his term he: sent the army in to round up and move the Indians in the south, he faught a war with Mexico and acquired Texas, California, and other western lands. He was (thanks to British/Canadian intransigence) unable to negotiate a northern border with Canada. He refused to run for a second term, and retired. (Your Maximum Leader will also add that he died shortly after leaving office - which your Maximum Leader also thinks is a generally good thing for ex-presidents to do.)

5) Ronald Reagan He redefined the role of the modern federal government. (If you don’t think so, look at the administration of Bill Clinton and guess again.) And he won the Cold War.

6) Theodore Roosevelt He started moving the nation towards global superpower status. Started necessary progressive changes and sensible regulation of the American economy.

7) Andrew Jackson The first populist president. First to utilize the presidential veto and thereby create the modern system by which laws are made in the US.

Harry Truman Had a tough act to follow, but did very well at it. Used the Bomb to end the war. Nationalized the Coal industry to break an illegal strike. Suddenly woke up and smelled the coffee concerning Soviet aggression and started defending US interests against communists.

9) Thomas Jefferson Overall he doesn’t score lots of points with me for his presidency. But you have to give credit to him for the Louisiana Purchase.

10) Lyndon B. Johnson To those who know your Maximum Leader well, this may seem like a surprising choice. But, Johnson used the power of his office to push through Civil Rights legislation. His “Great Society” programs were the logical extension to the “New Deal.”

So there it is… In all honesty, the Top 4 on your Maximum Leader’s list haven’t changed in about 15 years or more. He is very committed to the order of those four. The 5-8 slots are tough. They always consist of the same men, but your Maximum Leader sometimes changes the order. He often switches Reagan and TR. Slots 9 & 10 are so hard. Because once you get down to that level, there are always signifcant reasons for not including a particular president on the list. Other than the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson’s Presidency was a complete failure. Johnson’s albatross is Vietnam. It is hard to pick the lower part of the order. Other Presidents that your Maximum Leader is fond of are: John Adams (oft overlooked - if it were not for the Alien and Sedition Acts he would be much better remembered as a president); Dwight Eisenhower (great Cold Warrior); and James Madison (master manipulator of Congress - a fact often overlooked). Some great men who happened to be president include: John Quincy Adams, Herbert Hoover, and Woodrow Wilson. But they were failures as president. And then there is the special case of Richard Nixon. So much potential for greatness. So much realized misery. Nixon really deserves a category all to himself.

Could your Maximum Leader reel off a short list of the worst presidents? Sure. They are (in no particular order): U.S. Grant, James Buchanan (Is your Maximum Leader the only one surprised that Pennsylvania has only produced one President of the US?), Millard Filmore, Warren G. Harding, and Andrew Johnson.

Well… That was a fun intellectual exercise…

Carry on.

I’m so damn history-illiterate than I doubt I could even NAME ten presidents. Let’s see…

Eastwood?
Osbourne?
Chase?

Mortensen?
McKellen?
Rhys-Davies?
Astin?

Electra?
Aguilera?
Spears?

There, I did it. Barely. Whew.

Oh, wait– we’re supposed to provide reasons for our choices.

Eastwood: Shot a lot of people both in and out of office. Steely-eyed diplomacy. First president to threaten a Middle Eastern representative with an orangutan. I remember his slogan: “Deserve’s” got nothin’ to do with it.

Osbourne: If I recall correctly, his tenure was one big, drug-addled party. Great musician, terrible public speaker. Once bit the head off a bat. Now that’s a president! Vice President Eminem was a holy terror, his speeches laced with repeated references to bitch-slapping– bitch-slapping this or that country, bitch-slapping the “goddamn Senate,” and so on. Some people wisely pointed out, though, that VP Eminem’s repetitive, overly-focused style was reminiscent of Zen Master Gutei’s teaching method, in which all questions were answered by the raising of his index finger.

Chase: Fell a lot. Once shilled for Doritos, but the acting experience was a boon. Spent most of his presidency making people groan, but he’s fondly remembered, despite being something of a smartass.

Mortensen: Persuaded people to fight, even if he was only pretending and didn’t really like fighting. Pretty good with a sword. Bangeda few too many women, but we forgave him.

McKellen: Stood around looking all dignified. Introduced America to the, er, First Man. The only president who could transmogrify our enemies, though he tended to take long, mysterious absences from office, then spun tales of demon-wrestling. Liked all-white suits. Also liked manipulating metal objects from a distance, and once telekinetically rescued someone whose pacemaker was malfunctioning. Brought Shakespeare to the Oval Office. Once caused a scandal by dressing as a Nazi.

Rhys-Davies: Pugnacious, in-your-face leadership style. Pissed off all the right people and often seemed to be mocking Middle Easterners. Staunch advocate of Western civilization, and inventor of “battleaxe diplomacy.”

Astin: Kind of youngish and inexperienced, but good-hearted, earnest, and determined. Liked giving people piggyback rides. Followed the Clinton tradition and hung out at barbecues.

Electra: Famous for how she campaigned– not a single poster showed a picture of her face.

Aguilera: First president to masturbate in public during a speech. I recall being transfixed. And she brought facial piercings to the White House!

Spears: Her term was for the most part a cavalcade of artificiality, it’s true, but she did like to cry for the camera, and her third State of the Union address featured her humping a microphone.

_

Why Six? Because I felt like it. No particular order.

1. George Washington

Mostly because I grew up near Mount Vernon. And for all the stuff ML said below.

2. Abraham Lincoln

Again, ML gets to the point below.

3. FDR

One hell of a war time leader. The man who lead America to victory through WWII deserves to be on this list for that fact alone.

4. Teddy Roosevelt

Foreign Policy would never be the same.

5. Harry Truman

The Buck Stops here. I love accountability, and for that , he earned his spot here.

6. Grover Cleveland.

Why? Because I said so.

Two non consecutive terms. Any man who has the balls to run for President, AND WIN, after losing a national election deserves a place near the top.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is beginning to make plans for what he will do on Washington’s birthday. (Which is this Sunday. February 22, 1732 for those of you who didn’t know.) He plans on taking the Villainettes and Mrs. Villain to Ferry Farm. Ferry Farm is the site of Washington’s boyhood home. I say the site because the house burned down and now there is just an ongoing archeaological dig on the site. This aside… Your Maximum Leader issues a challenge to his ministers and readers. Please list the 10 greatest presidents of the United States. Give an explanation as to why you think they should be in the list. The criteria for greatness listed must be restricted to their presidential careers. For example, if you wanted to claim (wrongly) that U.S. Grant was one of the greatest presidents you could not cite his Civil War record as “proof” of greatness. (However, for Grant you could cite the widespread corruption of his administration as a model for future corrupt presidential administrations.) Any reader who sends in a list will have his list published (with possible editorial commentary from your Maximum Leader).

To preview your Maximum Leader’s list, he presents his top five:

1) George Washington. The first president, and the overriding shaper of the office. He set down many of the precedents that still function today. He established the cabinet system, and gave shape to the executive branch. He set down the major goals of US foreign policy (shunning entangling alliances) which held until (arguably) the Second World War. He also flexed (for the first time) federal supremacy over the states by putting down rebellions in Pennsylvania.

2) Abraham Lincoln He saved the Union.

3) Franklin Roosevelt Created the modern presidency (characterized by a strong executive). He also created the modern federal government (characterized by not only supreme federal authority but by an all-intrusive federal government).

4) James Knox Polk Your Maximum Leader throws you a fastball here. He has always believed in the greatness of James K. Polk. Polk promised four things would be accomplished during his presidency. 1 - the Indian question in the south would be resolved; 2 - Texas would enter the Union; 3 - California would become part of the US; 4- a northern border with Canada west of the geat lakes would be fixed. Polk said if these four things were not done in his four years, he would not seek another term. During his term he: sent the army in to round up and move the Indians in the south, he faught a war with Mexico and acquired Texas, California, and other western lands. He was (thanks to British/Canadian intransigence) unable to negotiate a northern border with Canada. He refused to run for a second term, and retired. (Your Maximum Leader will also add that he died shortly after leaving office - which your Maximum Leader also thinks is a generally good thing for ex-presidents to do.)

5) Ronald Reagan He redefined the role of the modern federal government. (If you don’t think so, look at the administration of Bill Clinton and guess again.) And he won the Cold War.

Aside: It is your Maximum Leader’s belief that Ronald Reagan will be the last true ideological president we will elect. With the 24 hour news cycle what it is (and the high level of scrutiny that candidates go through) it is so improbable that any “true believer” of any political stripe will be elected. We will be stuck with left-center, right-center, or center candidates from now on.

There are the top five. The complete list will appear sometime later today or tomorrow. List away!

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wanted to chime in on the whole Bush National Guard issue.

First to address the Post Article by Richard Cohen that the Minister of Agriculture quoted extensively below. Logical fallicy. Cohen is arguing that because HE did precisely the things that the Kerry/Terrry McAuliffe/Democratic Operative people are saying about Bush; then Bush did the same things. Or, at least, Cohen strongly infers that because it was easy to sign up for the Guard, skip service, and still get paid; that it was easy to do and Bush could have done the same thing. But the thing Cohen doesn’t do is provide any proof whatsoever that Bush’s National Guard record is anything less or more than the President has said it is. Cohen relates an interesting and topical anecdote and wants the reader to join him in his own preconceived notion of the nature of the President’s Guard service. It’s an enjoyable and well-written column that means nothing. (Like much of the “Oh look at me I’m a progressive! Niether a liberal nor a conservative; just progressive!” blather that the Minister of Agriculture blogs from time to time…)

Next, and more importantly, what is the point of all of this carrying on about Bush’s time in the National Guard. The point(s) appear to be 1) Bush lied! Just like he lied about Iraq! 2) Bush is unfit to be Commander in Chief because he never served in battle (and had the opportunity) 3) Bush’s National Guard service makes Kerry’s heroic war record look even more heroic and presidential.

Let’s deal with these items. Bush lied. Did he? For years all your Maximum Leader ever heard was that he was in the National Guard and flew fighter/interceptors. And so he did. He got paid for service. He also said he was honourably discharged. All these things are true. The Dems are saying that there is a period where he was AWOL, and this makes him a liar. While Bush has released a considerable portion of his records from the Guard, he did seem to bungle the release “everything” stage. It is the job of the Press to assume that that which was not released somehow is proof of him covering up something nefarious. Of course, in reality, we just don’t know. Your Maximum Leader is sure that more records will be released. And more people will come forward saying how great Lt. Bush was in Guard. And for every faithful Bush-adherent, there will be a feckless Bush-detractor who will directly contradict everything everyone on the other side said. In the end the Dems are hoping to get the “Bush lied” moniker to stick. They hope to create linkage between this “lie” and the “Iraq WMD lie.”

Since your Maximum Leader brought it up. Let’s just touch on the “Iraq WMD lie,” shall we? The Dems are saying that Bush lied about the Iraqi situation as a means of setting up an invasion and occupation of Iraq. Why invade and occupy Iraq? A host of different Dem reasons. They range from “Its all about Oil” to “I gotta finish off that evil man who tried to kill my daddy.” Your Maximum Leader will allow you to choose your own imbecillic conspiracy theory. Your Maximum Leader’s dim view of human nature (and the American attention span and the simplistic nature of the press corps) is once again confirmed. During the whole “Prelude to War” period the various member of the Bush Administration went to all the major news outlets to build support for the war. They all were prone to give highly detailed lists of reasons why invasion was in the national interest. Upon beginning a laundry list of reasons to invade Iraq the Administration official would be asked by an insipid reporter “It’s all about weapons of mass destruction isn’t it?” Whereupon the Administration person would say, “Yes, that’s part of it.” And then the follow-up questions would all be about WMD. All the questions about the war were posed from the position of WMD. Since the press was asking about it, the Administration kept talking about it. Now and again they would try to talk about the other points. But it seemed as though all anyone wanted to talk about were WMD. So that is all that was fed to us through the media. Your Maximum Leader realized that there was more to it than that. Your Maximum Leader’s trusted Ministers believed there was more than that. But all anyone wanted to know about was WMD. Now that we haven’t found WMD it is all “Bush lied.” Your Maximum Leader wonders how many reporters have gotten the intelligence briefings the President (and key members of Congress) got? He wonders how many raw intelligence feeds the reporters got? He wonders how many raw intelligence feeds the President (and key members of Congress) got? (Not many he suspects.) Intelligence is often wrong. (Go back and read about the spy wars of WWII. Remember, the Germans didn’t counter-attack on D-Day because their intelligence told them that the real attack was coming at Calais and not Normandy. How wrong they were.) If the intelligence seemed shaky at the time no one seemed to think so. No one in the Administration, and no one in Congress. (Both the Senate and the House have intelligence committees that received briefings.) Now… Al the press does is parrot “Where are the WMD?” As if that is all the war was about. Your Maximum Leader will not go on at length here about the benefits of the war, but he thinks they are many.

Next, Bush’s National Guard service (as opposed to active duty front-line service) makes him less prepared for being Commander in Chief. Kerry’s war service, on the other hand, makes him more fit. Your Maximum Leader will cite two examples of how front-line service doesn’t a Commander in Chief make. The two people are Winston Churchill (the Greatest Man of the 20th Century - and one of the greatest ever to have lived) and Adolph Hitler (the most Evil Man of the 20th Century - and one of the most evil to have ever lived). Both saw action in battle. Churchill in India and Africa and WWI. Hitler in WWI. Churchill was a junior officer in India and Africa. He was a Colonel in WWI. Hitler a Corporal in WWI. Neither man’s service helped him at all lead their country in war. In Churchill’s case, he couldn’t apply anything he did directly to leading Britain’s war effort. He did have firsthand knowledge of the suffering of the common solider. But being a late-19th century cavalry officer didn’t help him think strategically during WWII. He drew upon other talents for that. He was a great war leader because he had the vision it took to motivate others to win the war. He was not made a great war leader by killing Dervishes in the Sudan. Hitler on the other hand believed his military service and his suffering in WWI made him more competent as a war leader. So much so that he directed much of the German war effort. Corporal Hitler was not a strategic visionary; but he was a meddler. Thank God for that.

Neither Bush’s service in the National Guard, nor Kerry’s service in Vietnam, qualify them (or disqualify them) in any way to be Commander in Chief. What matters is their strategic vision. We know what Bush’s is. We also know what Kerry’s is. Bush is going to try to get international support for an aggressive take-the-fight-to-the-terrorists war. And if he can’t get that support, he will act in what he believes is the best course for our national security. Kerry has said he is an internationalist; and would act only in accord with our “allies” and with the sanction of the “United Nations.” (Quick - What are the nations united for in the United Nations? They are united in opposition to the US! Two marks to everyone who got the correct answer. Your Maximum Leader applauds you.)

So really, the Guard issue is a non-issue if you look at it from the perpective of how would each man lead our national foreign policy. Bush will take a high-risk “go-it-alone-and-do-what-is-best-for-us approach.” And Kerry will take a higher-risk “only-with-our-buddies-the-French/German/Russians/UN” approach. If you haven’t thought of it before my minions. Think now. Realize that THERE ARE NO LOW-RISK PATHS IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE. You aggressively fight the terrorists, you incite people who want to kill us and destroy our way of life and nation. You don’t fight the terrorists, they continue to want to kill us and destroy our way of life and nation. You try to take the middle path and only act with broad international support against terrorists, they continue to want to kill us and destroy our way of life and nation. Hummm… Do you see a trend my minions? Don’t tell me your Maximum Leader was the first to point this out. In this way your Maximum Leader is like Barry Goldwater. In your heart you know he is right.

So the last issue really seems to be Kerry is a war hero and Bush isn’t. Well, no argument from your Maximum Leader on that one. Kerry is a war hero. He is a very brave man, who gallantly led his men through things that many men couldn’t. He deserves our thanks and the gratefulness of the nation for that. Bush is not a war hero. Does being a war hero make you look more presidential? Maybe. Your Maximum Leader is impressed by war heros. (At least American and British ones.) But hedoesn’t equate heroics with presidential leadership.

And do war heros come back and bash the war they faught in? Well, some do and that is their right to do. But your Maximum Leader is not impressed by Kerry’s anti-war message and congressional testimony during the 1970s. He testified to congress about how US soliders raped and pillaged villages in Vietnam. He testified about how US soliders committed atrocities against Vietnamese. Your Maximum Leader is not so naive as to believe that it didn’t happen. But if Kerry had firsthand knowledge of these things, and did nothing to stop them; then he is a criminal. If he just heard about these things and repeated the stories to congress, he did nothing to help end the suffering caused by renegade soliders.

So… Where does that leave us on Bush and Kerry and the future of the War on Terror? Exactly where we were before we started to worry about National Guard service and who is the decorated war hero.

Carry on.

UPDATE FROM MAXIMUM LEADER: Added link to text of Kerry’s comments to Congress. Thanks to Hugh Hewitt.

Carry on.

Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was over on Dr. Burgess-Jackson’s blog and saw he was putting a tenspot down on political observations. Your Maximum Leader will not take his bet, but thinks his comments are worth reading. And thinking about.

Carry on.