The polls are showing that Kerry “won” last night’s debate. But was that on content, or just style? GW sure looked pensive in a lot of the two shots, and I remarked that he looked like someone listening to a pathological liar — someone that just couldn’t believe what he was hearing coming out of the next guy’s mouth. Or maybe it was the way Kerry was able to morph into someone that appeared to have a point of view. But that might be a good thing, as what he finally got around to espousing shows him for what he is; the most liberal man in the Senate, anti-war, Europe centered, nuclear freeze proponent, et cet. If those are your politics, you’ve got your man.

And I don?t want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks. Don?t you think I know about France?s relations with Saddam? Surely the advocates of the French Touch must know, and don?t care. Or they don?t know ? in which case their advice is useless.

Germany? Whatever.

And it took lots of dead Americans to be able to say that.

Also dead Russians. Is Russia the great ally we?ve dissed? If we invite Russia to help, then we have to tell them things. I don?t want to tell them things. At least as they relate to the battlefield.

For those interested in such things, he also links to a government archive of WW2 photos. Interesting and enlightening.
—————————————–

Daniel Henninger writes in the Wall Street Journal, You Don’t Need A Staged Debate To See the Future

Think about the next crisis and you’ll have a better idea which post-campaign reality you’ll want in the Oval Office. The next crisis, already in view, is a madman or a mad mullah with a nuclear bomb. It’s North Korea and Iran. And on the nuclear runway sit Syria, Egypt and perhaps Saudi Arabia. You don’t need a staged debate to decide whether you want a Republican or Democrat dealing with that problem. Ever since Reagan, the parties have divided over confronting the nuclear threat. You have a choice.”

—————————————–
If you are as disappointed as I am at the way our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are being reported, see Ollie North’s latest column on Townhall for some insight direct from the troops.

It’s practically the same grievance I’m hearing now, on my fifth trip to Iraq since the war began. The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines I talk to here are downright angry about how their war is being “reported” — and the way those “reports” are used as political fodder back home, in Europe, even in Iraq. As a young Army captain vehemently put it: “Ernie Pyle would laugh at what passes for reporting in this war. The networks set up their cameras on a hotel balcony and send out an Iraqi producer to buy videotape from Al Jazeera. Then the reporters all sit inside the “green zone” and concoct their bad news stories. The next thing you know, it’s being used in a political ad back home. For me, this isn’t political — it’s personal. We’re a whole (expletive) lot better than what people back home are seeing.
Tough words from an angry young man twice wounded leading his soldiers in action against terrorists who are trying to prevent Iraqis from doing what millions of people in Afghanistan will do just days from now — casting a vote. He wasn’t alone. After last Thursday’s presidential debate, a U.S. Navy SEAL, serving in Baghdad, spoke about the negative CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that has attracted so much political attention: “That document was sent to the White House, State, DoD and Congress in July. It was based on information collected while you were covering the April battles in Fallujah and Ramadi. It was a pretty depressing time. It’s not any more. “Despite what’s being written, we — by ‘we’ I mean the Iraqis and the Coalition — are getting ahead of the terrorist’s game. The Iraqi people want to have an election — and we’re going to help make that happen. Terrorists like Zarqawi and Muqtada al Sadr are doing everything in their power to stop it. They can’t. “After you were out here in July and August, we helped the Iraqis clean up Najaf. It was an al Sadr stronghold. His goons dragged Iraqi citizens off the streets, put them in front of his ‘Courts’ — then beheaded and shot men, women — even children — for infractions of ‘Islamic law.’ That isn’t happening any more. The people of Najaf helped us fight back. They are now free to walk their streets, shops and businesses have reopened, and al Sadr’s thugs are either dead or looking for a new line of work. “Remember Samarra? You’ve been there. A few weeks ago, Samarra was off limits to U.S. troops. It’s not any more. The locals got fed up with living in fear of terrorists and foreign radicals, let them know they weren’t welcome, and today Samarra is again a thriving city — all without us firing a shot. You’d never know that from the press.”

That will do it for now, more to come . . . db

This entry was posted on Friday, October 1st, 2004 at 9:24 am and is filed under Focus On Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.  |   Print This Post  |   Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• Two More Pro-Global-Warming Scientists Become Sceptics — Is Hell Freezing Over Yet?
• Merry Christmas Y’All — 2011!
• Pearl Harbor Day — the USS Oklahoma — a Post Redux “x” Five
• More Climategate 2.0 Shenanigans . . . What Else Would We Expect?
• Concrete, Sustainability & The EPA — A Nasty, Expensive Mix — Oh, Ya Betcha!
• Climategate 2.0 Emails – Real & Spectacular?
• Chemtrail Of The Day
• Giving Thanks to Our Veterans On This Special Day
• Victor Davis Hanson On The Upcoming Presidential Election
• SEIU Siphons ‘Dues’ From Michigan Medicaid Payments