Straying Thoughts

Look At It From The Other Side

There's much disappointment in the blogosphere that the big story turns out to be just another Kerry lie. Add "I met with the whole UN security council" to being in Cambodia, running in the Boston Marathon, watching the ball roll through Buckner's legs, 35 bills that became laws and so on and on.

Interesting thing about this story, aside from the lies Kerry tells for which the MSM will never hold him accountable, is that, even if it were true, it's bad for Kerry. He talked to the security council to see how serious they were about holding Saddam responsible and he came away convinced that they were committed to the sanction. We know this is not true; many of the members of the council and the UN itself were up to their eyeballs in the corruption that allowed Saddam to circumvent the sanctions. And Kerry naively took them at their word.

This is Kerry's reflexive internationalism.

Why?

I find myself wondering why CBS and the DNC picked the issue of George Bush's National Guard service on which to make some sort of last stand. I would think a great many Americans couldn't care less what George Bush did 30 years ago. Whether they support him or not, they care about what he did the last 4 years and what he might do the next 4 years. There's no real story here. Jed Babbin in National Review and Byron York in The Hill describe Bush's service. He fulfilled his service and earned an honorable discharge. There's no story here.

Is this the Bush Derangement Syndrome that Charles Krauthammer predicted:

the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and I wasn't happy with the outcome of the election, but I didn't lose my mind. Of course, I was never an actual Democrat. I can see where a true believer would be more upset, but a lot of these people have clearly lost their grip on reality. They talk of a stolen election even though the liberal media counted the ballots in Florida and declared Bush the winner. They feel they've been cheated and it's ok to cheat to get back what's rightfully theirs. It's a sense of entitlement mixed with a need for revenge.

Another idea to consider is the Left's mistrust of the military. Clearly, the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party is not in ascendancy, if it even still exists (I don't think Joe Lieberman, Ed Koch, and Zell Miller can make a wing all by themselves). The new Deaniacs are the old McGovernites and they have this strong pacifist trait. I don't think they understand most Americans' respect and love of the military as the preservers of our great freedom in a world that still has too little of it. They think it's about a love of guns and bombs and uniforms, they think of it as militarism bordering on fascism. That's why they're so tone-deaf. They see it as a pose and since Kerry can imitate this pose, they feel they've settled doubts about their attitude towards the military. "You want a hero, we've got a hero, medals and everything." Then they belittle Bush's Guard service, ignoring that there are Guardsmen in places like Iraq and that the Reserves are an integral part of our defense strategy. And they don't think anyone will notice the blatant hypocrisy of disparaging Guard service when they ran an actual draft-dodger in Clinton. They exalt Kerry and the vets who support him but dismiss as liars and hacks the Swift vets. People draw the conclusion that the Democrats' sudden love affair with military service is a passing fancy.

By their thinking, Kerry should have been a lock. Everyone's talking about war. We need a war hero. Kerry's a war hero. But people didn't embrace Kerry as the Democrats thought they would. So they keep drawing the distinction over and over again, hoping people will get it. "See, Kerry = military hero, Bush not. I don't understand. Why doesn't the public fall in line?"

Who's The Source?

I'm beginning to wonder if there's coordination between CBS (or at least Rather) and the DNC. Maybe everyone else has already assumed this, but I don't see anyone talking about it. From The Captain's post & ABC's report, it seems likely that CBS had knowledge that their memos at least questionable. They clearly cherry-picked their experts, taking the ones they could get positve statements from and cutting the ones who had doubts. They didn't get hoaxed; they deliberately obscured the truth.

Add to this the DNC ad campaign that in essence builds off of CBS's report. From The Kerry Spot on NRO

CAN TERRY MCAULIFFE READ? [09/14 08:45 PM]

Can Terry McAuliffe read? The Washington Post, I mean. The CBS memos are getting picked apart by every expert under the sun, the experts CBS cited are saying they didn't really authenticate the documents, ABC News is quoting skeptical experts who say CBS ignored them, and McAuliffe decides to unveil a new web ad and ad campaign attacking Bush on his National Guard service? An ad that uses footage of the now-discredited CBS report?

It was known last week that the DNC was going to run these "Fortunate Son" ads. Why would Rather go forward with a tainted report and why would the DNC go forward with ads that built off of it?

It's one thing to CBS to be biased, but to put forth a fraudulent report and coordinate it with a presidential election campaign to influence an election is beyond acceptable. Who gave CBS the memos? Was there coordination with the DNC or the Kerry campaign? If the DNC or the Kerry campaign is the source, where did they get them from? Or have I gone to tin-foil hat land?

Name An Ally, Any Ally...

Kerry is again saying that if he were President, he would have been able to bring along other allies, enough to make an impact in the $200 billion he says we're paying for the Iraq war (which he is for and against).

I keep wondering what other countries he could have gotten to contribute significant armed forces or money. Powerline points to an article in the Washington Times discussing new intelligence findings concerning France selling weapons to Saddam just months before the start of the war (the article is an excerpt from a book titled Treachery by Bill Gertz; 2 more excerpts are coming).

    The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.

The rockets that almost killed Paul Wolfowitz in October of 2003 came from France.

 In all, between eight and 10 missiles hit the hotel. The casualties might have been higher, and included Wolfowitz, if the improvised rocket launcher had fired all the missiles.
     Because of a malfunction, 11 failed to go off...  
     Half the missiles fired at Wolfowitz's hotel were French-made Matra SNEB 68-millimeter rockets, with a range of two to three miles. The others were Russian in origin.
     The French missiles were "pristine," Navy SEAL commandos reported.
    "They were either new or kept in very good condition," said one SEAL who inspected the rocket tubes.
    The rockets were thought to have been taken from Iraq's French-made Alouette or Gazelle attack helicopters.
    The fact that new French missiles were showing up in the hands of Saddam loyalists months after the fall of Baghdad made Wolfowitz and his close aides livid.

As the above quote indicates, the French weren't the only one involved in supplying Iraq with weapons.

An initial accounting by the Pentagon in the months after the fall of Baghdad revealed that Saddam covertly acquired between 650,000 and 1 million tons of conventional weapons from foreign sources. The main suppliers were Russia, China and France.
    By contrast, the U.S. arsenal is between 1.6 million and 1.8 million tons.

Of course, Kerry claims that one of the reasons countries refused to join the coalition was because the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto protocol; he forgets to mention that a Senate resolution rejected the provisions of Kyoto and the Clinton administration never sent the treaty to the Senate for approval (via The Commons). It seems more likely that countries like France refused to join us because

As of last year, Iraq owed France an estimated $4 billion for arms and infrastructure projects, according to French government estimates. U.S. officials thought this massive debt was one reason France opposed a military operation to oust Saddam.
    The fact that illegal deals continued even as war loomed indicated France viewed Saddam's regime as a future source of income.

That last sentence is especially interesting. Gee, do you think the French were rooting against us? And do you think France actually gave a rat's ass about Kyoto? It's interesting the way liberals always seem to portray other countries as being more noble than America.

I'd like some reporter to ask Kerry: with Saddam's Iraq owing France $4 billion and China and Russia both selling arms to Iraq, what countries does Kerry think would have joined us?

Kerry keeps making blanket assertions: he'd have done it better, he'd have gotten other countries to go along, he's got a secret plan to win the war (is that one still floating around?). And the press is so busy following Democratic talking points, they can't be bothered pressing him for details.

Name the countries.

Do I Dare...

I was talking to my sister Monday night. Her daughter had her first day of middle school last week. Middle school’s a big step up. They change classes. They get lockers. My sister tells me that the big thing for middle school kids is decorating their lockers. I’ve seen the displays in Target, all sorts of colorful locker accessories like mirrors and picture frames and mini-fridges. Well, maybe not mini-fridges. I’m listening to my sister talk about the classes my niece likes and those she’s not too sure of, and this thought flits through my mind, “The children of Beslan brought flowers for their teachers on the first day of school.” I flick the thought away and don’t say anything to my sister. Why cause her worry? Of course my sister keeps up with the news and the thought probably has gone through her head more than once these last few days.

It must be hell to be a parent. You give them flowers and locker mirrors for the first day of school and what they really need are kevlar cocoons and how were you to know?

They carried flowers and the flowers were all they had to eat for two days and they drank their own urine to stay alive and the terrorists smiled while shooting the fleeing children. One of the terrorists ran out of bullets and had to resort to stabbing an eighteen month-old child to death. He couldn’t let one toddle away alive, now could he?

I used to wonder what made people like this, but I no longer care. What I want is someone to be working day and night doing everything possible to keep these soulless vipers away from my niece’s school in Nevada and my nephews’ schools in New York.

Which leads me to ask: Is now really the best time to put Senator Prufrock in the White House?

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, ``Do I dare?'' and, ``Do I dare?''
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair--
[They will say: ``How his hair is growing thin!'']
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin--
[They will say: ``But how his arms and legs are thin!'']
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. *

I just realized today that it’s been almost a year and half since the war in Iraq began and Kerry has yet to make up his mind if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. He voted for the authorization to go to war, but when Howard Dean had momentum, he decided he was against the war and voted against the funding. A couple of weeks ago, he said that he would go to war like President Bush had done, only better, of course; then he said he’d do everything differently. This week, it’s wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. I guess he’s waiting to see how it’ll turn out. Wouldn’t want to come to a hasty decision. But there isn’t

...time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea. *

Don't you think the vipers who provided Russia with its 9/11 will be eager to give us the American Beslan? No one can guarantee this won't happen here, but President Bush seems willing to "disturb the universe".

* The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock by T. S. Eliot

They're Going To Go Negative?

There have been a spate of columns by Democrats bemoaning that they're just too nice. They've been too nice in this election and maybe they should consider "going negative". Going negative? Who are they trying to kid?
ProfessorBainbridge has a long list of negative attacks by Democrats. PoliBlog has additional items for the list. My own addition would be Howard Dean's speculating that President Bush was warned of 9/11 and did nothing to stop it.

For most of this campaign, the Democrats have removed ideas and substituted anger. Even when they talk about domestic issues, their supposed strong point, most of their rhetoric consists of how much President Bush hates women and blacks and children and soft, furry little bunnies, and it's just not credible. (I mean, who could hate bunnies?) Kerry has been short on ideas and long on attitude, from the arrogance of "I would do it better" to the indignation of "How dare they question my patriotism" (which, as everyone is now weary of pointing out, no one has done).

Instapundit and others regret that the issues of homeland security aren't being seriously discussed, but I think it's hard to have a one-sided debate. President Bush will announce what he has done and will do and Kerry will assert that he'll do it better. Aside from his lack of specificity, his record of 20 years in the Senate does not lead me to believe that he would be more aggressive in the war on terror than the President, and it is not questioning his patriotism to point that out. If he's changed his mind on defense, then let him explain that change. There are a lot of people who rate defense as more important in the light of 9/11; it's nothing to be ashamed of.

The Democrats' rage at having lost in 2000 (and yes, they really did lose) and their dismay at being behind now betrays their elitism. They believe that the office of the President is theirs by right and if they don't get it, the fix was in. It doesn't occur to them that they may have run bad campaigns or put forth week candidates or simply failed to persuade the voters. By running on his biography and throwing hissy fits everytime someone questions his version or his record, Kerry is implying that he should be President just because he is Kerry. "Don't you know who I am?"

New Poll

Time magazine has a new poll out that shows President Bush taking a clear lead in the election, 52% to 41% with 3% for Nader. It was taken from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. It'll be interesting to see the trends in the polls when they starting including time after President Bush's speech and Kerry's post-convention hissy fit.

Save The Democrats

You know, as I listened to Democrats say things like, "George Bush stole the election", "Republicans questioned the patriotism/service/sanity of Max Cleland/John Kerry (choose 2 from column A & 1 from column B)", "George Bush misled us into Iraq (he said we were going to the zoo, dammit)", I suddenly realized what the problem may be.

Democrats may be trapped in an alternate universe where these things are actually taking place. I read about that kind of thing all the time. Yes, I read science fiction, but that doesn't mean it couldn't really happen; we shouldn't dismiss the possibilty. They phase out of our universe into the Evil Alternate Universe (EAU) and the EAU George Bush steals the election. They phase back into our universe and they're all ticked off and who can blame them. Of course, we think they're crazy, because no such thing happened here. I mean, even the very liberal NYT admits that Gore lost in 2000; though you do have to wonder if the NYT isn't also phasing in and out of the EAU, 'cause let's face it, their butter's slipping off their noodles.

In the interests of bipartisanship and saving what's left of the Democrats' sanity, the President should appoint a commission of distinguished scientists to investigate the problem. Let's save the Democrats from the Evil Alternate Universe! And let's do it quickly, before there's an outbreak of evil twins. I see that all the time on the soaps, and it's not pretty.

Jumping The Shark of Life, Part I

Instapundit has this entry on a poet at a NOW protest.

A featured performer at a National Organization for Women rally accused President Bush of having "savagely raped " women "over and over" by allegedly stealing the 2000 presidential election.

Poet Molly Birnbaum read aloud to a crowd of feminists gathered in New York's Central Park on Wednesday night, as part of a NOW event dubbed "Code Red: Stop the Bush Agenda Rally."

"Imagine a way to erase that night four years ago when you (President Bush) savagely raped every pandemic woman over and over with each vote you got, a thrust with each state you stole," Birnbaum said from the podium.

So George Bush not only stole Florida (which he didn't), he's stolen other states as well. And losing an election is just like rape! What about women who have actually been raped, violated, brutalized, having their trauma used and degraded by this woman to express her petulance about having lost an election? Why would I want to have anything to do with these people who have so clearly lost their grip on reality? And what the hell is a pandemic woman? Is she contagious? Should I get shots?

Kerry's No Michael Jordan

I remember when Jordan was playing, his opponents would complain that the referees were protecting him by calling easy fouls; the idea was that the NBA wanted to protect their marquee player from injury.

I get the impression that the Demos, with all their mock outrage and their how-dare-they's, think Kerry is Jordan.

Can't talk about his Vietnam service because then you're slandering all Vietnam Vets and hey, what did you do in the war, daddy (I was in jr. high in '68-'69 and I'm not your daddy--mommy neither). Can't talk about he actually slandered all Vietnam Vets after the war because dissent is patriotic and what did you do in the war, daddy (in high school at this point, and I'm still not your parental unit). Can't talk about his time as Dukakis's Lt. Governor because that's going too far back (although not as far as Vietnam, which is seared, seared in his memory, especially Christmas in Cambodia...or was it Boxing Day in Thailand...or maybe Groundhog Day in Tibet--that would explain his reliving it over and over). Can't talk about his Senate record because that's questioning his patriotism (and he doesn't actually seem to have done anything). Can't talk about his constantly changing array of positions on the war on terror (yes, no, maybe, new and improved, let's spin the big wheel and see what our candidate believes today).

Then I think about Shaq--the Shaq of a few years back before he'd won some championships and couldn't make free throws to save his life or his team (maybe he still can't; I haven't watched in a few years). If the opposing team was behind near the end of the game, their strategy was to do anything to get Shaq the ball and then foul him, because he wouldn't make the free throws and they'd have the ball. Of course, the strategy of the Magic was to keep the ball away from Shaq at the end of the game.

The Demos aren't referees protecting the league's best player; their teammates trying to win the game while coping with the fatal weakness of the guy who should be their marquee player.

It's be kind of funny, except that the referees/media are doing their level best to cover for Kerry, also.