October 1, 2004 by s.z.

Who Are You Going to Believe: the GOP or Your Lying Ears?

The Bush campaign is up early, telling me what I should say about the first debate when I discuss it at my child's birthday party or at the big orgy at Scalia's.  And I appreciate their efforts, since I'm feeling kind of woozy (Sex Day really wore me out).

Subj: REFLECTIONS ON FIRST DEBATE 
Date: 10/1/2004 2:42:35 AM Mountain Standard Time
From: BushCheney04@GeorgeWBush.com 

Dear Word O'Crap,

Over the next few days, at the office, at your children's football or soccer games, and in your homes, people will be talking about last night's debate. 

People better not be coming into my homes and talking about last night's debate, or I'll get out the shotgun (once I buy one).

Here are some important facts to keep in mind as you're talking with friends and neighbors about the exchange.

Meaning, "Here's the official spin on the debate.  Pass it along, if you want to see your kids again."

President Bush spoke clearly and from the heart last night about the path forward - toward victory and security - in the War on Terror. 

Hey, that's not a fact, that's just your paid opinion!  And my non-endorsed opinion is that President Bush spoke in pieces of memorized rhetoric ("conducting war is hard work," "you can't send mixed messages," "making love is hard work," etc.), and he spoke from the spleen.

Yes, to me Bush seemed fretful, annoyed, and huffy.  Oh, and bossy.  I didn't like how he jumped with his "I know you are, but what am I?"s, not waiting for anybody's permission to take an extra shot at rebutting Kerry's second rebuttal,  even though the rules were that there was only supposed additional discussion at Lehrer's discretion.   And I didn't like his attitude of, "I'm the President, and I know what's best for everyone, little Missy, and I don't appreciate your back talk."  He just seemed immature and petulent, which isn't what I look for when choosing a president.  But I guess other people may have seen things differently ...

The President spoke candidly about the difficulties facing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as these countries prepare for their first free elections.  The terrorists will continue to fight these steps toward freedom because they fear the optimism and hope of democracy.  They fear the prospects for their ideology of hate in a free and democratic Middle East.

Well, not that candidly.  For instance, he said:

"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein (sic) -- I mean bin Laden. He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The killer in -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is in prison. We're making progress."

However, he failed to candidly point out that those al Qaeda leaders who have been brought to justice (i.e., have been captured or killed ), have been replaced.  Al Qaeda isn't 75% smaller than it was when we started this "War on Terror," since the Iraq war makes a good recruiting tool for the terrorists.  If we are making progress against al Qaeda, it's not the kind of progress one would have thought, before Iraq, that we could have achieved at the cost of so many lives, and so many billions of dollars.   (BTW, the CIA reportedly estimated that two-thirds of the leaders had been eliminated -- but I guess Bush doesn't trust the intelligence agencies, and decided the true number on his own.) 

(The LA Times and Wash Post report several other instances where Bush's candidness is suspect.)

But of course, the President doesn't appreciate anybody bringing up the idea that the war in Iraq might be helping al Qaeda (and therefore hurting the War on Terror).  

"My opponent just said something amazing.  He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide."

Yeah, it's Bush's war and he'll fight it any way he wants, even if his way is  counterproductive and plays right into bin Laden's hands, because bin Laden isn't the boss of him!

President Bush detailed a path forward in the War on Terror - a plan that will ensure that America fights the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan - not in America's cities.

That was pretty much the entire plan Bush "detailed": fight "the enemy" in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of in our cities.  Because, you know, the insurgents in Iraq would come all the way to Sioux City to fight us for occupying them if we didn't fight then in Samara.  So, we'll fight them until we've won, and then there will be democracy and cake.  That's the rest of the plan.  No, the President will not be taking any questions on the plan.  Oh, "we have a duty to protect our children."  That's part of the plan too.

John Kerry failed the one test he had to pass last night: he failed to close the credibility gap he has with the American people as his record of troubling contradiction and vacillation spiraled down to incoherence.

Um, what debate where you watching, Ken?  The only incoherence I heard came from the guy who talked about "moolahs."  He was also the one who said:

"You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her -- her loved one to be in harm's way."

Poor George.  The troops do the easy work of dying, while he has to do the hard work of trying to love as best he can the family members they left behind.  But hey, he tells their widows that we have to deal with threats before they are actually threats, and then they understand their loved one died for a good reason, and everything is cool. 

Truth and optimism are not competing ideals.  The War on Terror is difficult - there will be good days and bad days, but the war is essential to our safety at home and victory is the only option.

But, hey, with the help of our allies, Tony Blair and Poland, we'll win this war through freedom, toughness, and Resolve carpet cleaner.  That's the last plank of the detailed plan.  Now, isn't that Kerry a big stupidhead?.

P.S.  Ken forgot to use the official spin of the day: claiming that Kerry said we need to "pass a global test" before we can wage a preemptive war.  The dipsticks on Fox News were giggling up a storm about this one, and I bet it will be in every Townhall column for the next few days. 

So, to refresh your memory, let's review what Kerry actually said: 

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of State, who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis sent his secretary of State to Pa ris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell him about the missiles in Cuba, he said, here, let me show you the photos. And DeGaulle waved him off and said, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?

But the Bush supporters feel that the President should get to wage preemptive war whenever he feels like, and its nobody's damn business why he did it.  Because you (and the rest of the world) should just take it on faith that he did it, as Karen Hughes told Hannity & Dupe, "to keep your children safe."  Because John Kerry just doesn't understand that we were attacked on 9/11 "by terrorists who wanted information or material to make nuclear weapons."  And that's Kerry's "fatal understanding."  And besides, he didn't show us his heart, like Bush did, so he might be an android.

5:17:52 AM