Political Satire/Commentary -- Daily Updates at PoliSat.Com TM © since 1999

·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·

First Things First: Salute America's Heroes · Fallen Heroes Fund · Frequent-Flyer-Miles for Troops · Thanks to Troops · Military News ·· MilBlogs ·

Home · Posts: Current /Recent · Videos/Toons/Songs: Latest · Embed-Codes · Text Index · Images Index · Archives: Old · New · About · Contact · Syndication · Affiliates ·

News Sources/Papers/Magazines Pundits Blogs ThinkTanks What is "property"? Pantheopians Global Climate Asteroids/Comets Hitting Earth--Risks/Predictions Science GlobalWeb

Political Satire /Commentary Daily Updates .™©·2004 ..··
Where the satire is always commentary but the commentary isn't always satire.
Special Commentary: To Citizen Soldiers a Song to Explain How Proudly We Thank You for Deeds in Our Name.
·Change font/text size·· Recent-Updates Index·· Archives·· Home·· Search PoliSat.Com·· Support PoliSat.Com.

January, 2004 (Daily installments are in reverse chronological order) Latest installment, go here.

··

Jan. 31, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040131-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

John Kerry invokes the "Don't attack my patriotism" ruse.·

John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam earned him the gratitude and respect of Americans (including this one), but it doesn't entitle him to mischaracterize criticisms of his political views (especially those on foreign policy) as "attacks on his patriotism." Such reactions would merely serve to reduce, rather than enlarge or maintain, his stature.

He doesn't shrink from harsh criticism of policies with which he strongly disagrees, so he ought not try to imply that harsh criticism of his policies are the equivalents to attacks on his patriotism. He's also not entitled to expect that every criticism of him be prefaced with laudatory homage to his undisputed heroism as though a critic is somehow obligated to include such preface in order to prevent harsh criticism from being characterized as an attack on his patriotism.

Even today, he's speciously characterizing harsh criticism of Max Cleland by Saxby Chambliss in the 2000 mid-term elections as attacks on Cleland's "patriotism." If criticisms of Kerry today (and of Cleland in 2000) were attacks on their "patriotism," what were Kerry's attacks in 1971 on those who supported the Vietnam War? What was Kerry's recent, posthumous attack on Nixon by characterizing the war started by the Democrat Lyndon Johnson and ended by the Republican Richard Nixon as "Nixon's War"? Does not an accusation implying that a President purposely prolonged a war (and thereby countenanced many casualties) merely for political gain constitute an attack on such President's "patriotism." So why does he feel so entitled to holler "foul" when those against whom he has "dished it out" reply in kind?

Even heroes can be wrong-- even guilty of seriously flawed judgment.·

Max Cleland, another indisputable hero who likewise earned the gratitude and respect of Americans (including this one) lessened this writer's respect for his civilian-life judgment by implying that his opponent's harsh criticism of his position on legislation to establish the Department of Homeland Defense constituted an attack on his "patriotism." In the election in which Saxby Chambliss won Cleland's seat as Senator from Georgia, political controversy swirled around the extent to which legislation to create the Department of Homeland Defense should import labor-law limitations on managerial decisions affecting government-employee union members to be transferred into the new Department.

Cleland was supporting legislative procedures to delay creation of Homeland Defense until, and unless, the legislation were to be amended to satisfy the demands of the government-employee unions. Chambliss characterized Cleland's willingness to do so as having the effect of delaying implementation of governmental changes deemed by virtually the entire government as being essential to improving our ability to counter terrorist acts within the United States. To characterize such criticism as an attack on Cleland's "patriotism" rather than his judgment is to set the threshold so low as to render such phrase meaningless and ineffective for characterizing criticisms that actually do constitute attacks on one's "patriotism."

Like every American, my gratitude to, and admiration of the courage of, John McCain is unbounded. Nevertheless, that does not oblige me to refrain from harshly characterizing what I perceive to be the anti-liberty effects of positions he embraces such as campaign finance "reform" forcing Americans desiring to be politically active to hire a lawyer in order to be sure what they may say for whom and when and what they may contribute to whom and to when in order to avoid criminality. It doesn't oblige me to refrain from harshly criticizing his anti-liberty position on "Big Tobacco" while he luxuriated in the lap of "Big Beer." It doesn't oblige me to refrain from harshly criticizing him when he joins in the class-warfare rhetoric on taxes that's so popular among left-of-center Democrats. Such criticisms are not attacks on his "patriotism" and do not in any way diminish his entitlement to respect for the sacrifices he made for our country. To McCain's credit, he rarely, if ever, has tried to characterize harsh criticism of his positions as attacks on his "patriotism." Kerry should strive to follow McCain's example.

With respect to people who harshly criticize others and/or oppose actions their opponents deem vital to reducing the risks of terrorism, the phenomenon of their trying to characterize harsh criticism of their positions as attacks on their "patriotism" or attempts to "censor" them is a manifestation of the very form of demogogueary it purports to condemn. To harsh critics of Bush, whose right to criticize him harshly I defend (without being obliged to respect criticism I deem unfair) but who so quickly cast themselves as being crucified on the altar of free speech when they become the objects of in-kind criticism, I say, "Grow up!"

Ganders at Sauce for the Geese-- A Political Duet Between Kerry and Kennedy.·

Hey, Johnny, I cannot believe
attacks by the Bushies on me
impugning my motives
for claiming his motive
for war was profits to reap.

Hey, Teddy, I surely agree
they're doing the same thing to me
for merely implying
our soldiers are dying
to re-elect Bush 43.

So what if we call him despotic
for toppling Saddam the psychotic.
When Bushies design
responses in kind,
they're claiming we're not "patriotic."

To view the animated version of this limerick-set duet between John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, click the image above to activate it.-- Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

··

Jan. 30, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
* Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040130-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

David Kay's recent report to the Senate supports, not undermines, war in Iraq.·

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week, David Kay said "we" (i.e., to honorably and objectively include himself among our intelligence experts, military experts and civilian leaders) reached, and adhered to, erroneous conclusions beginning in the mid-to-late 1990's in believing (a) that Saddam Hussein had maintained the large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons he was previously known to have possessed, (b) that Saddam Hussein was in the process of "reconstituting" his nuclear-weapons program, which we had discovered in the mid-1990's to have been far more advanced than we had believed when we launched Desert Storm in 1991, (c) that Saddam Hussein and his top leadership had a true understanding of, and effective control over, what his WMD scientists were actually doing, and (d) that Saddam's police state was so effective that fanatic Islamic terrorists could not effectively operate in Iraq without his acquiescence.

Kay also stated we were right that during the time frame from the ouster of inspectors in 1998 and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam Hussein and his weapons experts (1) had been working on means to use the nerve agent Reisen, (2) had been developing missiles with ranges substantially exceeding the limits set by UN resolutions, (3) had made arrangements to covertly acquire North Korean missiles with ranges and payloads much greater than prohibited-range missiles being maintained and produced by Iraq, (4) had maintained the plans, infrastructure and materials to enable Iraq to rapidly recommence mass-production of chemical and biological weapons and restart a nuclear-weapons program as soon as sanctions were to have ended, which Saddam expected to occur as a result of international pressure after a period of ineffectual "inspections."

Kay also stated (5) that numerous Iraqi weapons scientists interrogated since the toppling of Saddam Hussein had revealed aspects of Iraq's weapons-development plans and progress that they would not have disclosed to the UN inspection team while Saddam was in power because they, and/or their family members, would be killed or tortured, and that, therefore, continuation of the inspection process would not have lead to exposure of such activities. Most important, Kay explicitly said (6) that if our intelligence were to have been accurate, it would have revealed a more compelling, not less compelling, reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Predictably, critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom have focuses exclusively on (a) and (b) (to which I refer hereafter as the "overstated dangers") while ignoring Kay's testimony on (c), (d),(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) (to which I refer collectively hereafter as the "underestimated dangers"). Understandably, and, in my opinion correctly, supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom will focus on the underestimated dangers but without ignoring the overstated dangers. The collective impact of objective analysis of all those factors overwhelmingly establishes that although we were in error on how Saddam Hussein posed a serious "gathering danger," we had in fact underestimated the potential directness of the gathering danger posed by allowing Saddam to remain in power.

Rangers who reached the top of Pointe du Hoc overlooking Omaha Beach after sustaining many casualties from withering German fire as the Rangers scaled the cliff discovered that Allied intelligence had overstated the dangers on that bluff. German placements had duped Allied intelligence into believing huge guns were positioned on the bluff to slaughter Allied soldiers landing on Omaha beach. After reaching the top and discovering the huge guns were not there, the Rangers found and disabled a set of large, mobile guns, which the Germans had placed elsewhere for use in different tactical deployments. Thus, the Rangers' mission (at the cost of the lives of many Rangers) saved many lives but not the particular lives they expected the mission to save. The analogy isn't perfect, of course, but the principle is the same-- i.e., based on what we now know, it's even clearer that launching Operation Iraqi Freedom was the right decision. Solving the problem of intelligence that overstated some dangers while understating others should comprise a bipartisan effort rather than grounds for a political food-fight.

Many, if not most, of the critics who will complain most loudly about the overstated dangers are among those who supported, or demanded, severe qualitative restrictions and quantitative limitations on our intelligence-gathering capabilities. That process commenced with "reforms" implemented in 1970's the wake of hearings by the Senate committee headed by then-Senator Frank Church. (Such reforms including mandates for "stove-pipe" separation of domestic investigative assets such as the FBI and foreign intelligence operations, which was one of the factors leading to our domestic "right hand" and foreign "left hand" not effectively collaborating in a way that might have led to prevention of 9-11.) The process of eviscerating our ability to gather and analyze intelligence accelerated as a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War. Politically popular, but naive, limitations in the 1990's (such as prohibitions against the CIA using the services of foreign operatives with criminal backgrounds) further exacerbated the problem. Will the current critics of our intelligence failures who supported those "reforms" accept personal responsibility for the deficiencies in our intelligence gathering capabilities flowing directly from such "reforms"? Of course they won't.

Ironically, among the most eloquent pre-war reasons asserted by Tony Blair in favor of Operation Iraqi Freedom was the danger of mass-destruction weapons and/or know-how in a rogue state such as Iraq falling into the hands of fanatical Islamic terrorists. The chaos and corruption Kay has found to have existed in Iraq in the time period preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom show that we were already facing the risks of fanatical Islamic terrorists (some of which were already operating in northern Iraq) procuring WMD materials, technology or assistance from Iraqi weapons scientists by bribery or extortion with, or without, Saddam's acquiescence or knowledge. In that sense, we now know after the fact that Iraq was already at risk of becoming a lawless state akin to Afghanistan. Will the critics who contend we have not done enough to fund employment for former Soviet weapons experts to reduce the risks of their selling their knowledge and expertise to terrorists now contend that rogue scientists in Iraq did not pose a similar threat with respect to expertise on chemical and biological weapons (even if we were to ignore expertise they surely also possess with respect to creating "dirty" bombs using conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material).

Law Enforcement Versus Warfare.·

Finally, given what we know about the twin dangers of sociopathic police states such as Saddam Hussein's regime and religious fanaticism such as al Qaeda, Ansar Al-Islam, Islamic Jihad, Hammas, and Hezbolla, why would we want to wait until a threat becomes "imminent" to attempt to eliminate it rather than countering it at relatively lower risks and costs when it "merely" constitutes a "gathering danger"? The different political perspectives on the "gathering-dangers/imminent-threat" debate reflect different perceptions of whether dealing with the sociopathically dangerous Saddam Hussein ( who tried to assassinate Bush 41 and whose forces were continually trying to kill our pilots patrolling the no-fly zone in violation of a truce that merely suspended the state of war between us) and with the fanatical Islamic terrorists is a "law enforcement" mission or a warfare mission. I think it's the latter.

··

Jan. 29, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040129-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Will the BBC's comeuppance for distortions of news motivate it to replace subjective objectivity with objective subjectivity?·

The resignations of Gavyn Davies as Chairman of the BBC and Greg Dyke as the BBC's Director General in the wake of the finding that the BBC "news" had presented false allegations that officials in Tony Blair's government had deliberately distorted intelligence about the state of Iraq's capabilities with respect to weapons of mass destruction should, but probably won't, force BBC acolytes recognize it's recently-acquired tendency to present ideological views as "news." For BBC critics, it's simultaneously sad and refreshing-- refreshing that the BBC is getting at least part of the comeuppance it deserves; sad that the BBC deserves it. Perhaps Davies can go into business with Howell Raines.

Decades ago, most American news junkies considered the BBC the gold standard for international news. This reflected not merely our Anglophile tendencies but also a view approaching objectivity. In recent years, many American news junkies (probably most who are not left-of-center) began to recognize ideological biases and prejudices embedded in BBC "news."

Even though we who fit into this category do not harbor the naive illusion that any news source is "objective" as defined by its denotation, we use its connotation to evaluate whether a news source is "objective." The connotation defines a standard of reporting that strives, and usually succeeds, to get as close to the standard defined by the denotation of "objective" as can realistically be expected for the reporting of news by human beings burdened with their own conscious and subconscious biases and prejudices. It's almost synonymous with "fair." Even subjective reporting can be "fair" when it's accompanied by disclosures of, or openly manifests, the subjective biases and prejudices that prevent it from satisfying even the connotation of "objectivity."

It's the masquerade of subjectivity as objectivity that so many of us find so offensive. It's what Bernard Goldberg (a classical liberal) describes in his book, Arrogance. We don't object to free speech. We don't object to strenuous criticism. We do object to subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. To illustrate one of the more ludicrous examples of BBC "objectivity," PoliSat.Com reprises below the animation illustrating the December 20, 2003, installment of Political Satire/Commentary about BBC "objectivity."·

Subjective Objectivity and Objective Subjectivity.·

We also object to the false "objectivity" of treating all values as equal. For example, we object to pretenses of "objectively" presenting pro-liberty and anti-liberty values as being morally equivalent. A news broadcast by an organization professing to believe in free speech mocks the organization's professed values when it equates an interview with a "man in the street" in a police state with an interview of a "man in the street" in a free society. It's like equating the possession of a firearm by a law-abiding citizen with such possession by a professional killer. It's like treating as morally equivalent the possession of weapons of mass destruction by a police state and a government disciplined by enforceable obligations to respect human rights.

News organizations professing to favor freedom of the press undermine rather than advance it by news reporting that conveys such moral equivalence between totalitarian societies and those that at least strive to respect free speech and human rights even if they don't always succeed in doing so. This fool's errand to achieve an absolute, value-free "objectivity" is part of what paradoxically led the BBC into the subjectively anti-western prejudice in the guise of a pro-objectivity bias.

Was it "objectivity" that motivated the BBC to characterize as malignant rather than erroneous whatever may have been the initial deficiencies in reports about Jessica Lynch? (Regarding BBC reports about Jessica Lynch, see PoliSat.Com installments for May 16, 2003, June 1, 2003.) Was it "objectivity" that motivated the BBC to imply moral equivalence between Saddam Hussein and elected leaders of countries respecting human rights by insisting that all news reports identify him as the "deposed former President of Iraq" rather than the deposed tyrant all civilized people knew him to be? Was it "objectivity" for the BBC to report that Blair had purposely distorted intelligence about Iraq? Wash it "objectivity" for the BBC to "report" (a la Baghdad Bob) that Coalition forces had not seized Baghdad when all objective evidence was to the contrary? No, no, no and no. It was false objectivity driven by an ideological agenda masquerading as "objectivity."

Will the comeuppance delivered to the BBC for ideologically based reporting disguised as "news" lead to serious introspection by the BBC? I doubt it. Most ideologues, when confronted with the failure of an effort, redouble it.

··

Jan. 28, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040128-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

After John Kerry's victory in New Hampshire, his next, most formidable opponent is John Kerry.·

Personal courage versus political opportunism. Most pundits think that describes the contrast between the demonstrably heroic John Kerry and the opportunistically erratic Wesley Clark. Personal courage versus ideological pandering. Most pundits think that describes the contrast between John Kerry and the ideological narrowness of Howard Dean's candidacy. Personal courage versus political veneer. Most pundits think that describes the contrast between John Kerry and John Edwards. Personal courage versus Bush Lite. Most pundits think that describes the contrast between John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. Personal courage versus courageous veneer. Most pundits think that will describe the contrast between John Kerry and George W. Bush. As usual, most pundits will be shown to be wrong.

Kerry Versus Kerry.· (Click image at left to view animation.)

Personal courage versus political opportunism describes the contrast between John Kerry's genuine military heroism and his political opportunism. In 1991, expecting Bush 41 to be proven wrong about Iraq (i.e., that it would become a "Vietnam"), Kerry voted against the Gulf War Resolution despite the demonstrably extreme danger to the world if we were to allow Saddam Hussein to accumulate vast wealth to construct a vastly more threatening military capacity by permanently and directly controlling Kuwaiti oil revenues and indirectly (if not directly) controlling Saudi oil revenues. In 2002, having concluded (as had Clinton, Bush, Blair, and virtually the rest of the western world) that Saddam Hussein had WMD capabilities constituting a serious and growing danger (which Bush 43 scrupulously and repeatedly described as "not" an "imminent" threat but a "gathering danger"), Kerry voted for the resolution upon which Bush 43 launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. In both instances, he voted in favor of what he expected to be the "I told you so" side of the post-conflict political spectrum.

Personal courage versus ideological pandering describes the contrast between John Kerry's genuine military heroism and the standard ideological pandering to constituencies that is the stock in trade of all politicians. It was not for being ideologically eclectic that the ADA gave John Kerry a higher (i.e., more favorable) rating than Ted Kennedy on issues dear to the hearts on the left.

Personal courage versus political veneer describes the contrast between John Kerry's genuine military heroism and the thin veneer of non-elitism he tries to project. Elitism isn't intrinsically bad. John F. Kennedy was an elitist (a president purporting to be counseled by the "best and the brightest"), but his elitism was more akin to the elitism of a meritocracy than the paternalistic gentrifitocracy¹ form of elitism to which Kerry (and Ted Kennedy) genuflect and over which John Kerry tries to project a veneer of non-elitism.

Personal courage versus Bush Lite. With respect to foreign policy (an a number of aspects of domestic policy), except for Joe Lieberman's "I would have done it better" criticisms of Bush's war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the "versus Bush Lite" portion of this is correct. However, for reasons explained in the following paragraph, the statement of contrast is incorrect to the extent to which it implies Bush Lite to be devoid of courageousness. Lieberman's dogged adherence to his principles regarding what he correctly describes as a "just war" has shown more political courage than the have-it-both-ways positions exhibited by Kerry. In other words, the pre-invasion Kerry was "Bush Lite," but the post-invasion Kerry became "Dean Lite."

Personal courage versus courageous veneer describes the contrast between the heroic, personal courage Kerry demonstrated in Vietnam and the veneer of political courageousness he tries to project to obscure his tendency toward political equivocation to maximize future political options. Kerry's use of this contrast (i.e., his oft-repeated statement that he "knows something" about aircraft carriers to imply Bush has only a superficial acquaintance with the risks of military service) creates a false comparison just as much as it would be a false comparison for Kerry to try to demean the non-medal-winning soldiers who served in non-combat roles in Vietnam. I don't remember Kerry belittling Gore's service as a military journalist despite Gore's occasional efforts to tout the fact that he served in Vietnam as a way to contrast himself with Bush (and Clinton).

No doubt many who joined the National Guard in the Vietnam era did so with the hope they would not be drafted as infantrymen in Vietnam. No doubt many who honorably served on active duty in non-combat branches in the Vietnam era chose non-combat branches because they preferred not to serve in Infantry, Armor or Atillery. Nevertheless, with respect to risks of death while performing a job in the military, a decision to join the Air National Guard to fly fighter planes manifested less aversion to personal danger than the preferences of many active-duty personnel to serve in non-combat branches. This was especially true in the Vietnam era when the rate of attrition of fighter planes and pilots in Vietnam made service in the Air National Guard pose a greater risk of "activation" than most other National Guard branches. This was also especially true in the Vietnam era by virtue of the comparatively greater danger of flying old, less-well-maintained fighters (relative to today's standards) than active-duty service in non-combat roles. (I'm reasonably certain-- although I can't cite the statistical source-- that in the Vietnam era, the risk of death and/or serious injury was, and was know to be, higher among Air National Guard fighter pilots than among those serving on active duty in Vietnam in many of the non-combat roles, such as military journalist.) Thus, I believe Kerry's attempt to attack Bush as a pretend warrior will lack resonance. I would respect Kerry more if he were to abstain from doing so.

Finally, to the extent to which Kerry wants to use deficiencies in our pre-war intelligence to discredit Bush, he should likewise be willing to discredit himself by virtue of his post-cold-war support for "peace dividends" that included, inter alia, significantly cutting our intelligence-gathering resources. Kerry deserves respect for having served his country and for having exhibited genuine heroism when the chips were down. His deserving such respect does not entitle him to the presidency nor does it demonstrate that his vision of the future is better than that described by Bush. In fact, I favor the latter.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com. ·

·¹·I'm coining "gentrifitocracy" to denote the form of elitism founded more on a paternalistic view of "the masses" than on viewing liberty and individual responsibility as the driving forces of a meritocracy.

··

Jan. 27, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040127-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Al Franken tackles heckler of Howard Dean in the New Hampshire Primary run-up to the Super Bowl.·

According to an article today in the New York Post, Al Franken "body slammed" a heckler at a Howard Dean rally. Franken said he's not a Dean supporter but that he tackled the heckler to shut him up in order to preserve free speech. Other witnesses disputed this explanation. According to PoliSat.Com's highly reliable (reliably high?) confidential sources, a number of witnesses said the man Franken tackled bore a striking resemblance to Bill O'Reilly. Other witnesses said Franken also threatened to tackle another man nearby for having just simply stood by during the heckling. (Reliable sources also say this other man bore a striking resemblance to Alan Colmes.) Franken's friend expressed concern that he might be sued for, and/or criminally prosecuted for, assault and battery.

After the incident, a number of witnesses asked what the man had been saying that sent Franken over the edge. No one could remember what the heckler had said, but all the witnesses agreed that Franken was quoting Howard Dean ("Aaauuuurrgggh") as he hurtled through the air to tackle the heckler.

According to PoliSat.Com's confidential sources, the incident has drawn such favorable attention from Free Speech Advocates that Franken is already contemplating a new book on the First Amendment (to be available for bulk-purchases by various activist groups) to be titled, Heckling Hecklers and the Tackling Tacklers Who Tackle Them. Meanwhile, Franken is fielding offers from both the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers to play tackle in the Super Bowl next Sunday.

PoliSat.Com has learned that when New England Patriot quarterback, Tom Brady (who tacitly showed support for Bush by attending the State of the Union speech in the VIP section for Laura Bush -- to the dismay of John Kerry), learned how aggressive Franken was in protecting someone Franken claimed to not be supporting, he demanded that the Patriots recruit Franken as a lineman to give him pass protection in the Super Bowl. However, since Franken claims to have acquired such skills as a wrestler, he may be better advised to await offers from one of those "professional" wrestling networks. Then, after the November 2004 election, he could challenge Dennis Hastert, a former wrestling coach, to a "smack-down" with Jesse Ventura as the referee.

Subsequent investigation has, however, cast doubt on whether the man was trying to "heckle" Dean or was instead trying to express support by chanting Dean's catchy slogan, "Aaauuurrrrggghhh."

Free Screech.·

While Franken attended a rally
for Dean he believed 'twas O'Reilly
whose words disrespecting
the Doctor with heckling
made Al choose to tackle "O'Reilly."

But later, the truth has been gleaned
from folks at the rally for Dean:
The man had appeared
to chant as a cheer
the "aaurrggh" as the trademark of Dean.

Rumors abound that the man will sue Franken for assault and battery. However, criminal prosecutors have already stated they would not file criminal charges because it would be too easy for Franken to prove the insanity defense. Meanwhile, Franken's friend has been trying to get him to enjoy the sobering effect of drinking a lot of (decaffeinated) coffee to perform 125 "Daily Affirmations," the secular equivalent of "Hail Marys." .

··

Jan. 26, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040126-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Bill Clinton says he can't meet the deadline for finishing his book on his legacy.·

According to Newsweek's just-published February 2, 2004 cover-date issue, Bill Clinton is having great difficulty writing the book for which he received he twelve-million-dollars in advance. According to Newsweek, he hasn't yet decided on a title for the book. Of course, it's widely understood that he desperately wants his book to out-sell Hillary's book, Living History. According to PoliSat.Com's anonymous but highly reliable (reliably high?) sources, he's tentatively decided to title his book "Living With Hystery." Who knows who will win the book-sale battle certain to be known as "Dueling Memoirs"?

In the meantime, a prominent Presidential Historian has offered ready-made material for inclusion in his book and has even offered to assign the copyright to Clinton as long as he would agree to incorporate the text of the book without editorial changes. That book is, of course, destined to be a runaway best seller ordered on-line or by fax.

In the wake of the Newsweek article, PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Chief obtained a brief but exclusive interview with Clinton about the book by posing as NPR reporter, Lefty Handonerbut. What follows below is the first of many excerpts from that interview. The first question propounded by our crack reporter was, "President Clinton, Why is it taking you so long to write your book?" Incredibly, Clinton responded extemporaneously in perfect rhyme:

Clinton's Writer's Block.·

You ask what's the cause of my plight
delaying the book I'm to write--
My writing is shot
because I have NOT
had syntax with interns who write.

With twelve-million reasons for hype,
my publisher's hoping I'll write
a book not refraining
from chapters explaining
the things that went hump in the night.

Twill tell how I kept my morale
despite "kiss and tell" by my gals.
Although they implied
my penchant to lie,
I always stood up for the gals.

(To hear the recorded version of Clinton's response, use this Audio Link to hear it on your own media player in WAV form.)

Clinton also hopes to have his book ready for release before, or in connection with, festivities for the opening of his official Clinton Library, which he named "Clinton Presidential Center" since "Clinton Library" would remind people of the Clinton Liebrary. Of course his critics hope to have their own say about his legacy at the Counter Clinton Library, also scheduled to open soon in Little Rock.

Asked by PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Chief what it's like for Hillary to now be the focus of attention rather than him, he said he was glad because he knew she'd always wanted the top spot. Questioned about recent reports that he's gaining so much weight that he's having to acquire a new wardrobe, Clinton said the reports were exaggerated but conceded that no longer being in the top spot requires less energy and makes him more prone to gain weight.

When asked whether he has a preference among those currently vying for the Democratic nomination for President for the November, 2004, election, Clinton said he did not plan to endorse anyone even though many of his former campaign workers are running Wesley Clark's campaign. He added, "I want to remain neutral, so it would be wrong for me to endorse the screamer, Howard Dean, the anti-DLC Kerry, the un-tested Edwards, the flaky Kucinich, or the stodgy Lieberman, but I must admit I'm tempted to endorse the sharp-witted Sharpton."

Near the conclusion of the interview, PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Chief asked him whether he had trouble securing interns for all the desired positions in his new office. Ignoring the question while opening the humidor on his desk, he offered a cigar to our Bureau Chief, a chain-smoker, who politely declined. To hear Clinton's answer to the final question, "Have you seen Monica lately," use this Audio Playback to hear his response in MP3 or this Audio Link to hear it in WAV form. As our Bureau Chief exited expecting Clinton to accompany him to the door, Clinton remained at his desk and just waved goodbye.
·

··

Jan. 25, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040125-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Reports oversimplify David Kay's statements about weapons of mass destruction..

Shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April, 2004, reporters asked David Kay, the then-former U.N. Weapons Inspector, who was then a consultant for NBC/MSNBC News, whether the Coalition Forces would find "smoking-gun" proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Kay unequivocally replied, "They'll find an arsenal of smoking guns." Months later, the U.S. appointed Kay to head the search in post-war Iraq for weapons of mass destructions. Last September, Kay reported to Congress that although they had not found "stockpiles" of chemical or biological weapons, they had found sample quantities, essential ingredients for mass-producing them, the means to recommence production of them, and plans to do so as soon as sanctions and/or pressure for inspections were to end.

What received the most attention in the news was Kay's assertion that his team had not found the "stockpiles" which Iraq had admitted having produced before the 1991 Gulf War and claimed to have destroyed afterward but without proof of when, how and where. Ignored was Kay's statement that his team had found massive evidence of Iraqi capabilities and intentions to resume production of WMD at the earliest opportunity after sanctions and/or pressure for inspections could be terminated. We now know Iraq's pre-war expectations (fed by what Iraqi intelligence documents uncovered since the war reveal as covert assurances to Saddam Hussein by the French and Russians that the U.S. would do nothing more than drop a few more bombs on Iraq rather than invading) were that international pressure to end sanctions would outlast international pressure for continuation of inspections, after which Iraq would resume production of chemical and biological weapons and reconstitute its nuclear program. We now know Saddam Hussein was in the process of acquiring from North Korea missiles with ranges vastly exceeding the ranges permitted under U.N. resolutions.

Reports in the The Telegraph within the last couple of months quoted Iraqi military personnel captured since the war as having said that during the war, the Iraqi military had understood that some of the "Toyota pickup truck" vehicles being operated by Saddam Hussein's most fanatical followers were equipped to launch chemical weapons. The Telegraph quoted such source as having claimed personal knowledge of one incident in which an order to launch such weapons was issued in the waning hours of the war but that the order was not obeyed because local conditions were such that the launching of such weapon would have killed Iraqi soldiers rather than Coalition forces. Relying upon the same source, or related sources, The Telegraph also reported that the speed of the ground war not delayed for a period of bombing as Hussein had expected interrupted the command and control ability to effectively issue orders for use of such tactical weapons by the specially equipped Toyota trucks.

Yesterday, and much of today, news reports abound describing statements yesterday by Kay to the news media to the effect that he has now concluded that Iraq did not manufacture massive stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons during the 1990's and that intelligence reports that large quantities of the pre-1991 stockpiles were no longer remaining in undestroyed form in Iraq before commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Many news outlets trumpeted these statements as "admissions" that Iraq didn't have any amount, or form, of weapons of mass destruction before the war.

Today, the London Sunday Telegraph reports that Kay stated today that he believes that shortly before the war, Iraq transported elements and/or components of (or for) such weapons across the border into Syria. Other experts have expressed agreement that such is likely to have been the case. Just as it's uncertain such report is true, it's equally uncertain that it's false. No one could seriously contend (and Kay does not so contend) that we yet know enough to know whether such claims and/or claims of tactical availability of such weapons before, and during, the war are true or not. Whether Saddam Hussein still possessed massive stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons he's known to have possessed at the time of the first Gulf War (which he didn't use then either), is less important than whether he possessed tactical quantities of such weapons, and the means to deploy them, before, or during, Operation Iraqi Freedom. Kay's failure to find the massive quantities believed to have been left over from the era of the first Gulf War is really irrelevant to whether there remain in Iraq or Syria yet undiscovered tactical quantities of such weapons.

Say critics, since searching has stalled, "Saddam had 'Reformed' after all."· ·

"'Legitimate business[-type] man'
is how I describe what I am,"
proclaimed Corleoné,
whose bigger cojones
maintained him as boss in his land.

In public, said Vito to all,
"Though once I caused many a pall,
I've now gone 'legit'
and promised 'no hits'--
I've ended 'em once and for all."

"Like Vito, I said through entreaters,
'I'd changed to benevolent leader,'
but Dubya like cops
believed I had not
been cured of the role of repeater.'"

"Since Dubya has yet to discover
where illegal weapons are covered,
it's proof I'd complied
with sanctions devised
before 'Start the war' Dubya uttered."

To those who believe I abridged
my programs with germs in the 'fridge,
as grounds to restrict
what Bush can inflict,
in Brooklyn, I'll sell you a bridge.

One is certainly free to assume that in the mid-1990's Saddam Hussein became infected with the religion of disarmament and really destroyed all such weapons and refrained from thereafter producing and concealing tactical quantities of same and tactical means for their delivery. One is equally free to assume that a sociopathic crime-family boss is likely to become a zealous follower of the Golden Rule and order all his thugs to foreswear violence and become genuine civic do-gooders. Experts on Saddam Hussein have long known his two favorite "role models" were Joseph Stalin and The Godfather character, Don Vito Corleone. One of the things he admired most about them was that both were ruthless and neither would have ever disarmed. It would have been wholly out of character for the sociopathic, megalomaniacal Hussein to have abandoned his WMD programs. That's why I don't subscribe to the defenseless Saddam theory so readily embraced by critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

··

Jan. 24, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040124-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)·

No installment for January 24, 2004. ·

··

Jan. 23, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040123-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Justice Scalia faces recusal decision in appeal of case for access to Cheney's Energy Task Force records.·

Now pending in the Supreme Court is Cheney's appeal from a lower court decision granting at least partial relief to demands by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club for access to records of the energy-policy meetings Cheney conducted as Vice President to formulate energy-policy plans to recommend to Bush. Also potentially pending are motions by the litigants for Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from participating in the appeal on the basis of Scalia having accompanied Cheney to Texas on a duck-hunting trip.

Because I hope the Supreme Court would reverse the lower-court decision to uphold executive privilege in order to avoid having a chilling effect on the ability of whoever is president to receive candid advice on policy matters, I hope that Scalia will choose to recuse himself-- not because I think he would allow his relationship with Cheney to influence his decision but because his failure to recuse himself would simply provide fodder for critics to imply that to have been the case in the event the case were to be decided in favor of Cheney by only one vote with Scalia being in the majority.

My admiration for Scalia began in law school. He was one of my favorite professors and also one of the smartest. He's also not thin-skinned and not the kind of person who would hold grudges against critics or grant favors to supplicants. To the extent practicable, the judiciary should utilize the prerogative of recusal to minimize circumstances that could be described in a manner to create appearances of impropriety despite the actual absence of same.

Should hunting of ducks be grounds to throw muck?·

Scalia's a man I admire,
in school against whom I conspired
to caricature
with humor, for sure,
before grade announcements transpired.

That students can clearly perceive
the risks that a grade they'd receive
would not be diminished
by speaking as critics,
shows trust that the "prof" won't be peeved.

Though certain Scalia'd not waver
from goals to not punish or favor
a side in a case
for personal tastes,
recusal I sometimes would favor.

And therefore, I'd favor recusal
in cases demanding perusal
of notes of proceedings
by Cheney in meetings
on tunes for the energy bugle.

That Justice Scalia had flown
with Cheney to Texas to roam
the woods hunting ducks,
recusal would shuck
the basis for muck to be thrown.

Justice Scalia is an honorable and fair-minded man. I predict that he will choose to recuse himself not because refusing to do so would be dishonorable but because he recognizes the value of the judiciary avoiding circumstances that could be mischaracterized in a manner to create a false appearance of impropriety. --Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com and former student of, and continuing admirer of, Justice Scalia. (P.S., I do not now have and do not conceive that I would ever have a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.)

··

Jan. 22, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040122-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

New Hampshire Debate: Kerry stays on top while Clark, Dean and Edwards flounder.·

Commentary-- Tonight in the final debate before the New Hampshire Primary, John Kerry, the Reluctant Warrior, proved again he's the Un-Dean (Un-Vitriolic), Un-Clark (Un-Erratic), Un-Edwards (Un-Un-Tested), Un-Kucinich (Un-Flakey), Un-Sharpton ( Un-Funny), Un-Bush (Un-Visionary) candidate. His warrior resume is better than Lieberman's but Lieberman's strategic vision is better than Kerry's. However, by not stumbling tonight, Kerry is continuing the process of saving the country from a Dean (or Clark) candidacy.

Dean failed to confront the elephant in the room (his temperament, inter alia). For the Democrats, Lieberman is the right man at the wrong time. (He should join Zell Miller and Ed Koch.) Edwards, the lawyer, showed himself to be woefully uninformed about the Defense of Marriage Act, about which he pontificated in error. First year law students would understand it was merely designed to provide an exception to the Full Faith & Credit clause to implement the very policy Edwards was claiming to support. Likeable, but lightweight.

Even though New Hampshire primary voters often pride themselves in their ability to stick their fingers into the eyes of Iowa victors, this year seems likely to be the exception that proves the rule. Kerry can continue playing "prevent defense."

Clark's unwillingness to distance himself from Michael Moore surely must have made all his former military colleagues cringe. Sharpton, the man with nothing to lose, remains free to provide clichéd entertainment and occasionally throw a curve at the other candidates.

One wonders if the candidates' studied avoidance of "negative attacks" on their peers tonight signals a temporary reprieve from vitriol or merely an uneasy truce. I suspect the latter. Nevertheless, assume, arguendo, that Kerry gets the nomination (as PoliSat.Com predicted before the Iowa caucus). Bush should then challenge Kerry to conduct the same kind of high-road campaign for 2004 as Kerry and Weld conducted a few years ago. It is possible for candidates to exchange sharp differences of opinion without each one trying to imply that evil, base motives rather than intellectual differences of opinion and judgment comprise the basis for the opponent's positions. It's also possible for each side to poke fun at the other side via satire, parody etc. without crossing that line.

Will it happen? I doubt it. If Kerry were to oppose Bush in such manner, he would probably alienate the people now supporting Dean and drive them into supporting Nader or some other minor-party group. Could Bush oppose Kerry in such manner? He'd better. That will be the best way for him to distinguish himself from how Kerry is likely to be forced to campaign (to protect his left flank.) On both sides of the political spectrum, there are too many other forces. Heck, some of my own work may have occasionally been over the top, but it's usually because it's directed at someone else for having gone over the top. The real test will come when each side is forced to decide whether to repudiate offensive views expressed by groups supporting them but over whom they have no control. Will Kerry repudiate the extremists on the left and will Bush repudiate the extremists on the right? I predict that neither one will do so effectively. Maybe the best way to improve political campaigns is to change the law on the taxpayer check-off by allowing those funds to be used to pay year-long, all-expenses-paid vacations to New Zealand during campaign years for Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, and most of the rest of Hollywood, and for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Judge Roy Moore,

··

Jan. 21, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 02·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040121-02.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

John Kerry says Bush took unfair advantage of Patriot Act for State of Union address.·

Today, after huddling with advisors, John Kerry said Bush had taken unfair advantage of the Patriot Act for political purposes in staging the State of the Union Speech. The controversy erupted today over the appearance last night by Super-Bowl-bound New England Patriot quarterback Tom Brady in the VIP guest box of First Lady Laura Bush during the State of the Union Address. John Kerry said "Something is fishy here. I thought Brady had agreed to endorse me." Asked how Bush could have persuaded Brady to join the First Lady and enthusiastically applaud many of Bush's lines in the State of the Union speech, Kerry said he suspected roughing the passer. Bush demanded a replay of the entire event to show there was no illegal contact.

Patriot Act "unfair" says Kerry.·

Said John, "Something's fishy or shady:
A guest of the nation's First Lady
for State of the Union
campaigning communion
was New England Patriot, Brady."

Said Kerry, "I thought I'd persuaded
the New England Patriot, Brady,
to say that for me
he's voting with glee,
so why did he join the First Lady?"

Said Dubya to John "It's surreal
but I felt the way you must feel
when Sosa I lost
in Texas as boss
of Rangers and couldn't appeal."

Like I, you've no grounds to appeal.
Your mem'ry is wrong on the deal.
When poll numbers showed
your standing was low,
for Brady I traded O'Neill.

On hearing the news, John Edwards predicted there would be no such defections from the Panthers. Appealing to the football fans in New Hampshire, Edwards emphasized his consistently positive approach by announcing that he wanted both teams to win so no team would be left behind. When reporters asked Dean to comment on the situation, he said "Aaaauuuugggghhhh," but his expression left doubt about whether he was smiling or just practicing baring his teeth. Wesley Clark said, "If I were a New Englander, I guarantee that no Patriot would leave my team." Joe Lieberman said, "I supported Brady's decision to attend the State of the Union, but I would have persuaded him to sit in my VIP section." Kucinich said, "I would've appealed the matter to the players' union." Al Sharpton described he incident as another example of the need to repeal the Patriot Act. Another professional sports player recently in the headlines, Pete Rose, said, "I bet Brady wins either way."

| Get Political-Satire Daily Updates by email | Become a PoliSat.Com Affiliate | Tell a friend about us | Search PoliSat.Com |
| Index to recent Daily Updates | Index to Archives of Daily Updates | View most recent animation | Index to Animations |

..
Jan. 21, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040121-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Bush's State of Union speech sparks reactions from Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Lieberman, and Kucinich.·

Responses to Bush's State of the Union speech set the stage for Campaign 2004. Howard Dean responded, "Yaaauuuugggghhhhh" while displaying his famous Iowa smile. John Kerry said, "Unlike Bush in his photo-op standing before Congress last night, I really know something about standing around in Congress." John Edwards said, "While Bush was appearing before powerful interests in Washington last night, I was meeting with ordinary, hard-working campaign strategists in New Hampshire." Wesley Clark said, "Bush gave a flawed speech last night. I guarantee that when I'm elected President, there will be no flawed State of the Union speeches inflicted on this country." Joe Lieberman said, "Gee, given the unwavering support I've given George Bush on Iraq, I was disappointed he didn't express support for my 'No Candidate Left Behind' proposals." Dennis Kucinich said, "If I were President, I'd change the location of the State of the Union address. Instead of speaking to the powerful interests in Washington, I'd address the ordinary people by making the speech to the United Nations General Assembly." Dick Gephardt said, "To look on the bright side of my loss in Iowa two days ago, I'm kinda glad I won't have to sit through any more State of the Union speeches."

Says Al, "I've invented the means to help Re-InviGore-ate Dean."·

I'm trying to figure why Kerry
and Edwards passed Dean in a hurry.
Though some say his raucous
displays irked the caucus,
the cause may be diff'rent, I worry.

I then began wracking my brain
to figure what made him go lame,
and now I profess
to know what is best
for Dean to get back in the game.

While list'ning last night to George Bush
I thought how I better could push
for Dean to do best:
Support I'll express
for all of the rest and for Bush.

Tom Daschle said, "I'll comment on Bush's shocking failure to propose that food products to bear a country-of-origin label, but I'm not going to comment on what he said about Iraq." Nancy Pelosi said "Unlike Bush, I've been on the Intelligence Committee for six years." Ted Kennedy said, "This speech was planned and rehearsed in Crawford, Texas." Hillary Clinton said, "To show my respect for the Presidency, I clapped my hands very slowly without rolling my eyes when I saw the camera focusing on me." Al Gore said, "Listening to Bush last night made me more determined than ever to try to help revive Howard Dean's campaign; therefore, I'm going to withdraw my endorsement of Dean and endorse all other candidates, including George Bush." Paul O'Neill said, "I was shocked that Bush didn't explain the difference between M-1 and M-2 relative to the inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation divided by productivity multiplied by the square root of the trade-deficit." Alan Greenspan said, "It was a speech." Bill Clinton said, "I would have given a better speech." Dick Cheney said, "I knew I would be behind the President."

Pat Robertson said "God told me every word Bush would say before he said it." Jerry Falwell said, "I was glad that Bush mentioned 'marriage' but disappointed that he failed to explain why so many marriages are not 'civil' unions. Judge Roy Moore said, "I was disappointed that Bush failed to recite the Ten Commandments in his speech." Louis Farahkan said, "Bush's speech lasted fifty-four minutes, which, divided by two equals twenty-seven, which, divided by three equals nine, and the seventy-one interruptions by applause minus twenty-seven equals forty-four, which, divided by four equals eleven-- Thus, numerology analysis of the speech shows Bush knew in advance about Nine-Eleven." Howard Dean said, "That's an interesting theory."

Martin Sheen, a Dean supporter, said, "My response is the same as Howard Dean's: "Yaaauuuugggghhhhh."" Rob Reiner, a Dean supporter, said, "Bush showed his inability to be literate by failing to quote from any of the thousands of books I've read that he's never read." George Soros said, "I wouldn't say Bush sounded like Hitler; I only contribute money to people who would say so." Willie Nelson, a Kucinich supporter, said, "Who needs tax relief? I've always felt a citizen's highest duty is to try his best to overpay rather than underpay his 'fair share.'" Michael Jackson, who is non-political, said, "I liked his proposal for no child left behind."

..
Jan. 20, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040120-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

John Kerry's Iowa victory strengthens Bush's hand against terrorist adversaries.·

Although yesterday's victories by Kerry and Edwards in Iowa are bad news for Howard Dean and "bad" news for Bush in that Kerry would pose a formidable adversary in Election 2004, they were good news for the country. Why? Because even though both Kerry and Edwards tried to distance themselves from their votes supporting the resolution for Operation Iraqi Freedom, neither conveyed his post-vote "reservations" in a manner that would boost the morale of our adversaries.

The Venting of Spleen in the Johns.·

The Iowa victories gleaned
by Senators "John" against Dean
are lessons on patience
'til activist patients
abandoned the Doctor of Spleen.

It's doubtful that Dean and his throng
perceive it was they who were wrong--
Prescriptions of Dean
for venting of spleen
sent Iowa folks to the "Johns."

Part of what propelled Kerry so dramatically to the top was that the Dean campaign gave Kerry ample opportunities to rebuke the ideological blindness of Dean and his supporters. (Dean's statements that Saddam Hussein's capture makes us no safer and that Usama bin Laden is entitled to a presumption of innocence despite his having bragged about being the author of the 9-11 attack best exemplify such ideological blindness.) Opportunities for Kerry to rebuke Dean for such statements not only drew attention to Dean's ideological unsuitability for the Presidency but also gave Kerry the opportunity to re-establish himself as a reluctant warrior, but a warrior nonetheless. Dean's unequivocal assertions that he would not have initiated Operation Iraqi Freedom without the express approval of the U.N. gave Kerry an opportunity to further establish himself as the Un-Dean by stating that no one should be President who would give France a veto over America's national security. Dean's effort to draw distinctions between such unequivocal position regarding Iraq and his mid-1990's letter to Clinton urging "unilateral" military intervention by the U.S. in Kosovo constituted the kind of pathetic offense to common sense that so vividly characterizes the blindness of ideological arrogance.

Why is Kerry's "comeback" good for the country? Because adversaries surely must recognize that Kerry's criticisms of Bush's foreign policy are driven more by a political need to draw differences between Kerry and Bush than by any fundamental lack of will on the part of Kerry to take decisive action against them if he were to become President. Surely no adversary could realistically expect a man who braved enemy fire while wounded to save a colleague would, as President, be reluctant to use military force to counter a gathering threat (rather than waiting until it were to become "imminent" as Kerry's campaign implies in an effort to distinguish himself from Bush). Thus, it helps Bush by strengthening his hand in Iraq and the war on terror in general.

It's true that a third of the Iowa caucusers preferred the sunny-side-up Edwards over Kerry, but such preference more likely reflects disdain for, or exhaustion from, vitriolic politics than a greater confidence in Edwards on issues of war and peace than Kerry (or Bush). Edwards deserves credit, however, for limiting his negativity to the standard, off-the-shelf, class-warfare arguments which have thus far proved so ineffective for the Democrats since Bush became President. If those hackneyed arguments prove to be the best Edwards (or Kerry) can offer, then their campaigns would bode well for Bush. Meanwhile, the Iowa successes of two senators who voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom bode well for America.

Some pundits equivocate about whether Dean's campaign is inexorably headed toward self-destruction. Perhaps they're right, but for the current, downward trajectory of Dean's campaign to change would require something not likely to occur-- i.e., for Howard Dean to actually become someone other than Howard Dean.

··

Jan. 19, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update #02·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040119-02.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

John Kerry and John Edwards trounce Howard Dean in Iowa Caucuses.·

As predicted by PoliSat.Com on Saturday, January 17, 2004, the Iowa Caucus would exhibit disenchantment with the Dean of Mean and Doctor of Spleen. Here's an excerpt:

If current polls reflect reality in Iowa (notwithstanding the reported high percentage of youthful voters relying only upon cell phones rather than traditional phones with numbers available to pollsters in land-line directories) we may be witnessing the counter productive effects of politics driven more by visceral hatred for, rather than respectful but strenuous disagreement with, Bush. Although John Kerry has often been harsh in his criticism of Bush, such criticisms have never reached the level of contemptuous, visceral hatred exemplified by such a high percentage of the ardent supporters of Howard Dean. Perhaps the rapid and simultaneous drop in the polls for Dean and rises for Kerry and Edwards almost immediately after Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen traveled to Iowa for in-person displays of their support for Dean signifies that even among the left-leaning Democratic activists in Iowa, infatuation with political hatred and celebrity activists is devolving.

John Kerry's stunning upset tonight in Iowa presages what will doom the Clark campaign in New Hampshire which had been succeeding thus far primarily due to the fecklessness of the Kerry campaign before Kerry clearly and emphatically defined himself as the Un-Dean. Next, he'll define himself as the Un-Clark. Then Kerry will define himself as the Un-UnTested to keep from being overtaken by Edwards, who now seems destined to be Kerry's VP candidate. So here's what in rhyme I must say about Kerry's vict'ry today:

The Iowa Caucus moved-on from Mad-Doctor Dean and MoveOn.·

Since Iowa Democrats spawned
a caucus on which it has dawned
that mad-Doctor Spleen
can't win for their team,
it's time for MoveOn to move on.

So after this vict'ry tonight
for Kerry, who's next in his sights?
The Candidate Seal
is certain to wield
contentions that Clark's full of hype.

His Iowa win, so dramatic,
will drown-out political static
New Hampshire has heard
by spreading the word:
"Politic'ly, Clark's been erratic."

The yet unanswered question is whether MoveOn and the other disciples of the Dean of Mean and Doctor of Spleen can subdue their vitriolic attitudes enough to support, rather than hurt, Kerry's candidacy. PoliSat.Com bets that many of them gravitate toward fringe candidates rather than Kerry, which may be his Achilles' Heel in November, 2004. --Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

..
Jan. 19, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040119-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Iowa-- Where Ironies and Paradoxes Abound-- It's Kerry, Un-Bush but Un-Dean.·

Ironies and paradoxes abound in our political process. Iowa caucuses are the centerpiece of political news on Presidential politics today even though with the exception of Jimmy Carter, success in Iowa has not paved the way to the White House for a Democrat. Lieberman and Clark chose not to compete in Iowa, yet the potential muddle in Iowa may redound to their temporary benefits. Among the small percentage of Americans infected with perpetual infatuation with politics (i.e., we who are political junkies), it's an exciting process. To the vast majority of Americans, the process at this stage is unbearably boring. They are busy enjoying the freedom our system provides while we are hyperventilating over who should control the levers of power. Freedom to participate includes the freedom to abstain. In many ways, abstention from this process is a strong vote in the belief that the process will ultimately produce a responsible leader regardless of who wins. With rare exceptions, one could view the history of the Presidential selection process as having proven them right.

I'm Kerry, Un-Bush But UnDean.

I'm Kerry, with lessons I've gleaned
in battl'ing the mad Doctor Dean:
Un-Bush may be fine
but polls show I climbed
much higher as Kerry, Un-Dean.

The current process abounds with more ironies and paradoxes than most of the perpetual conflict of ideas that characterize our political process. Lieberman, one of the more decent and honorable men in politics, has little chance of being selected due to his being Jewish. Why? Too many political activists who sincerely admire him fear his status of being Jewish would make it impossible for foreign policy decisions by him as President with respect to the Middle East to be perceived by most Arabs in the Middle East other than (incorrectly) as the policy of a Jewish supporter of Israel. Paradoxically, the process of sea-change in Middle East politics commenced (though long from finished) by Bush's strategic vision will ultimately increase the chances that a Joe Lieberman of the future become President. To Lieberman's credit, he seems to share Bush's strategic vision despite his disagreement with it at the margins.

Paradoxically, the recent, rapid rehabilitation of Kerry's campaign may signify that the best hopes of the most vociferous anti-war activists may be the candidate who supported the resolution for the war, then equivocated on such support and invoked his former anti-war-warrior status to appeal to the anti-war activists, and then invoked his warrior status to rebuke some of the extreme views of the anti-war activists. Kerry's heroism in Vietnam demonstrated his ability to make the right decision when the chips are down, but his tendency to equivocate on political issues suggests he has less political courage than human courage. One suspects that if Kerry were to have been President instead of Bush, even Kerry-- despite his equivocations in claiming he would have somehow persuaded the French to behave as though they were the Brits-- might well have followed the same course as did Bush. I doubt, however, that Kerry would admit this (and may genuinely not believe it), but it's difficult to imagine that one possessing the personal courage he displayed in Vietnam would -- after 9-11-- choose to wait until a threat is demonstrably imminent to counter it at far greater risks and sacrifice than to deal with it sooner. Rumsfeld stated it best soon after 9-11. The gist of his statement was that our intelligence capabilities are not, and never will be, sophisticated enough to predict precisely the last moment at which we may effectively counter a potentially catastrophic threat; therefore, with respect to gathering dangers of such threats, it's better to act too soon than too late.

In Iowa today, the un-vitriolic activists are on the verge of chastening, even if not defeating, the vitriolic activists. The most vitriolic activists, who have most loudly screamed that Bush and his supporters have been challenging their "patriotism," were themselves the first and most prolific practitioners of such tactic. One could hardly deem their accusations that Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom for the personal financial gain of his supporters and/or for his own narrow political advantage as being anything other than challenging his patriotism. Certainly one of the most unpatriotic acts any leader could commit would be to use the lives of our soldiers as pawns to advance such interests.

The vitriolic activists, who scream loudest about the value of free speech, demonstrate how little they understand the concept by labeling verbal condemnation of their caustic speech as "censorship" and as attacks on their "patriotism." One could certainly strenuously disagree with the wisdom of Bush's strategic vision without need to attribute it to the basest of human motives. Such vitriolic attacks detract from, rather than contribute to, serious intellectual consideration of the pros and cons of such strategy. Those of us who favor Bush's strategic vision are more than willing to debate it on its merits rather than on the basis of ad hominem attacks, but we're also disinclined to ignore the vitriolic ad hominem attacks on its supporters by opponents blinded by ideology and/or hatred.

To the credit of John Kerry and William Weld, they both conducted high-minded campaigns against each other. (Perhaps it was because they had so few differences between their political philosophies.) Few people know that before John F. Kennedy was assassinated, he and the man he expected to be his opponent in the next election (Goldwater, an unbigoted man misperceived as a bigot) had tentatively agreed they would schedule joint campaign appearances to debate their differences in a civil manner. Although it's unlikely, it's certainly possible for civility to drown out vitriol. Until such were to occur, serious minded people are obliged to continue trying to expose, condemn, mock and belittle the ideologies of vitriol. It's the difference between hitting first and hitting back. Is vitriol likely to disappear from our political dialogue? Certainly not as long as we have free speech. No free-speech advocate would want to pay the loss-of-freedom price we'd have to pay to eliminate vitriol from public discourse. Could civil debate marginalize vitriolic debate? Of course it could.

Some observers of satire and parody perceive them as the equivalent of the vitriolic polemics. Is that true for some satire and parody? Of course. Are satire and parody inherently incompatible with civil debate? Of course not. Can satire and parody contribute to civil debate? Of course it can and does. Part of what satire and parody can accomplish is what normal debate cannot-- i.e., catch the attention of some who otherwise would remain disengaged from the political process.

..
Jan. 18, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040118-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

·
John Kerry will be the Un-Dean, Un-Clark, Un-Hackneyed, Un-Untested, Un-Bush Democratic nominee.·

Regardless of whether the fervor of Howard Dean's true believers and/or Gephardt's caucus-veteran loyalists overcome the apparent last-minute surges of John Kerry and John Edwards in Iowa, and regardless of whether Dean and Clark remain competitive after Super Tuesday, John Kerry will become the Democratic nominee. Kerry will then genuflect to the Clinton wing by offering the second spot to Hillary, who will decline, and then Kerry will pick either John Edwards or Harold Ford as his VP nominee.

Why? Because Democratic activists, a majority of whom do not support Dean and think he couldn't possibly win, will perceive Kerry as the Un-Dean, Un-Clark, Un-Hackneyed, Un-Bush, Un-Untested Democratic nominee. Even though Kerry often conveys a muddled message, he's less prone to Dean's shoot-from-the-lip arrogance and expresses his anti-Bush views in a less vitriolic manner than Dean, so he's the Un-Dean. Even though he's taken inconsistent positions on the war in Iraq, his positions on Iraq (and on politics in general) are less erratic than those of Wesley Clark. Kerry's military record, his ability to avoid shooting himself in the lip, and his lack of an erratic political past make him the Un-Clark. Kerry's not having been a nearly perpetually unsuccessful candidate for the nomination makes him the Un-Hackneyed (i.e., Un-Gephardt). During this process, both the Gore wing and the Hillary Wing will try to discredit Kerry (without leaving their political fingerprints in doing so) because neither wing wants a Democrat to win in 2004 and thereby foreclose a 2008 candidacy by Hillary or Gore. However, since both wings would want to avoid being "caught" trying to undermine Kerry's candidacy, neither one will be able to effectively discredit him.

Kerry's proven heroism will make him a formidable candidate against a war-time President. His heroism, plus his having voted for the resolution authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom, will immunize him from the too-naive, too-erratic, too-hackneyed, too-un-experienced arguments Bush could make against Dean, Clark, Gephardt or Edwards. The angry, fervent "movement" that initially gravitated to Dean will support Kerry enthusiastically to avoid the Nader effect that many of them perceive as having cost Gore the 2000 election. A Kerry candidacy presents the best opportunity for the country to make a rational choice between the parties. Kerry's greatest difficulty will be to distance himself from the vitriolically anti-Bush support he's likely to receive from the fervent, angry "Dean" wing of the Democratic Party.

If Iraq were to appear to be on the road to successful transition into a non-hostile country potentially able to become a force for less-undemocratic, less-human-rights-violating government in the Middle East, Bush will win unless the economy takes a nose dive. If Iraq were to have become a force for instability or fanaticism, Bush will lose even if the economy is doing well.

..
Jan. 17, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040117-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Bush's directive for NASA to resume lunar exploration will shorten the Hubbell Telescope's lifespan.·

To implement Bush's directive to reallocate spending toward resuming manned exploration of the Moon, establishing a base on the Moon and sending a manned mission to Mars, NASA has cancelled plans for using the Space Shuttle to maintain the Hubbell Telescope. The Hubbell ranks as one of our greatest scientific achievements. Even more so was the stunning mission in orbit with astronauts replacing the nearsighted mirror to enable Hubbell to perform the mission for which it was designed. Equally stunning was the later mission in orbit with astronauts upgrading computers and other equipment on the Hubbell.

One wishes we could proceed with the new directives without abandoning the Hubbell, which, according to NASA, is not likely to continue functioning many years beyond 2007. (Canceling the Shuttle mission now scheduled for 2006 to service Hubbell reduces the chances that it will continue functioning until 2011 when it's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled for launch.) However, to foreswear resumption of lunar exploration (where abundant Helium 3 offers the potential for nearly limitless, environmentally friendly energy on what could become very cost-effective) and expansion of manned exploration to include Mars in order to continue servicing the Hubbell and making the Space Shuttle the centerpiece of space exploration would be as shortsighted as a quarterback calling the same running play on every down.

Aggressively returning to manned exploration of space will advance, not delay, the scientific progress needed to solve fundamental problems on Earth. Development of ion propulsion and Helium 3 as an energy source will ultimately improve the lot of everyone on Earth. Furthermore, development of better propulsion technology will enhance our (or our descendants') chances of preventing the next extinction-magnitude disaster like the one that made the dinosaurs extinct (or a "mini" disaster like the one that flattened a huge area in Siberia approximately 100 years ago, another of which is statistically due in the next few years and could just as easily hit New York as Siberian wastelands-- See also Asteroids/Comets.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.). Furthermore, the fact that we remain at risk of extinction makes it imperative to begin the first steps toward colonizing other planets sooner rather than later so that a future extinction-magnitude event on Earth won't extinguish the human race from the Universe.

The Man in the Moon's spelling trouble for Hubbell and also the Shuttle.

The wonders revealed by the Hubbell
and prowess displayed with the Shuttle
are means not the ends
for Man to befriend
the Cosmos in which we are huddled.

It's time we and NASA resume
the walking of Man on the Moon
for proving the worth
of Man leaving Earth
for alternate places to room.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com

..
Jan. 16, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040116-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Latest polls in Iowa raise doubts about breadth, but not depth, of support for Howard Dean.·

The Dean of Mean and Doctor of Spleen.·

If current polls reflect reality in Iowa (notwithstanding the reported high percentage of youthful voters relying only upon cell phones rather than traditional phones with numbers available to pollsters in land-line directories) we may be witnessing the counter productive effects of politics driven more by visceral hatred for, rather than respectful but strenuous disagreement with, Bush. Although John Kerry has often been harsh in his criticism of Bush, such criticisms have never reached the level of contemptuous, visceral hatred exemplified by such a high percentage of the ardent supporters of Howard Dean. Perhaps the rapid and simultaneous drop in the polls for Dean and rises for Kerry and Edwards almost immediately after Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen traveled to Iowa for in-person displays of their support for Dean signifies that even among the left-leaning Democratic activists in Iowa, infatuation with political hatred and celebrity activists is devolving.

Among, the contenders in Iowa, only Gephardt seems to understand the history of the future-- i.e., that from a perspective of 10 to 20 years from now, the toppling of Saddam Hussein will be recognized as a pivotal historical event sparking a gradual evolution of modernity in those portions of the Arab world currently teetering between pre-modernity and the dark ages. Gephardt deserves credit for having the courage to refuse to abandon the principled (and correct) position he took by supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom even though his criticisms of Bush raise doubts about whether a President Gephardt wouldn't have made the situation worse. His criticisms certainly haven't exhibited as much astuteness as those of Joe Lieberman, who seems destined to join the extinct wing of the Democratic party where Zell Miller left only his hat after moving into temporary political quarters with Ed Koch.

Regarding Edwards, perhaps his apparent shallowness is a misperception. At least he seems to eschew appealing to political hatred to the extent to which Dean has done so-- i.e., Edwards seems unwilling to go beyond the traditional class-warfare so dear to the hearts of Democratic activists in the opposite side of the tent from Zell Miller (and John F. Kennedy). His efforts, like Kerry's, to claim that he would have done a better job of procuring international support than Bush was able to muster for Iraq, seem founded on little more than naive wishful thinking rather than concrete plans for procuring their support without eviscerating the mission.

One of the best hopes for the future of the Democratic party is that after what will be their 2004 debacle, new leadership will emerge from smart, principled and classy Democrats such as Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. He, rather than John Kerry, could be the Democrats' John F. Kennedy of the new millennium. He exhibits the ability to disagree respectfully but strenuously and seems also to possess a vision of how liberal democracy (i.e., democracy tempered by guarantees of human rights) can and must transform the world into a freedom-friendly place.

Finally, here's the limerick to accompany the animation above:

We're actors, we're Reiner and Sheen
We're here to support Doctor Dean
to serve as our proctor
with skills of a doctor
to help us in venting our spleen.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

..
Jan. 15, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040115-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Ted Kennedy speaking at event to attack Bush on Iraq reads his old pro-war speech for Clinton by mistake.

Teddy then, Teddy now.

According to a Meet the Press transcript (found by Jonah Goldberg), a year before Saddam Hussein threw the inspectors out of Iraq (in 1998) and a year before Ted Kennedy voted for the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, which Bill Clinton signed, making it official U.S. policy to bring about the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Kennedy told Tim Russert that America could no longer tolerate Saddam's intransigence:

I don't think we should rule anything out, even military force. Those sites have to be accessible. They have to be available. They have to be inspected...I support the president's movement of military forces into the region and I think it has to be very, very clear to Saddam Hussein that those sites are going to have to be accessible and available, otherwise there's — nothing will be ruled out.

Yesterday, Ted Kennedy gave a speech denouncing Operation Iraqi Freedom and characterizing it as a purely political ploy hatched in Texas by Bush motivated by nothing other than political advantage. These comments are in addition to his previous accusations that Bush launched the war to serve the financial interests of his supporters.

Nowhere is the danger to our country and to our founding ideals more evident than in the decision to go to war in Iraq.... Despite protestations to the contrary, the President and his senior aides began the march to war in Iraq in the earliest days of the Administration, long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11..... After that [the first Persian Gulf War] ended, Wolfowitz convened a Pentagon working group to make the case that regime change in Iraq could easily be achieved by military force. The Wolfowitz group concluded that "U.S. forces could win unilaterally or with the aid of a small group of a coalition of forces within 54 days of mid to very high intensity combat." .... The following year, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and 16 others-10 of whom are now serving in or officially advising the current Bush Administration-wrote President Clinton, urging him to use military force to remove Saddam. They said, "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action, as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy." .... That was 1998. President Clinton was in office, and regime change in Iraq did become the policy of the Clinton Administration-but not by war.¹ .... Saddam's attempted assassination of President Bush during a visit to Kuwait in 1993 added fuel to the debate.

·¹·Emphasis added by me. The 1998 resolution did not contain a "not by war" caveat; this is an example of Kennedy's after-the-fact, revisionist editorialization, which stands in stark contrast to his statements to Tim Russert (quoted at the beginning of this commentary) a year earlier.

..
Jan. 14, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040114-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Bush tells NASA to begin working toward resumption of Lunar exploration and a manned mission to Mars-- Bravo!·

ASTRONAUTS, EPISODE XVIII.

Today Bush instructed NASA to begin planning to resume missions to the Moon to establish a permanent base there by 2015 to be followed by a manned mission to Mars by 2030. Based on what we've learned only recently, had we not shortsightedly ended lunar exploration decades ago, we could have already developed the Moon's abundant source of energy in the form of Helium 3, use of which could have already provided an almost inexhaustible supply of pollution-free energy for Earth and more than ample energy for ion-propulsion travel to other planets.

At the conclusion of Apollo 17, we unwisely succumbed to the opposition of those who would defer space exploration until we first solve social problems on Earth, in which case we would never renew serious space exploration. Bush's proposals, bold in goals but meager in resources, are at least a good start. Hopefully, the emerging high-technology generation will exhibit more wisdom and have a more pioneering vision for the future that did we, the narcissistic Baby Boom generation. (In fairness to myself, I was not one of those Baby Boomers preferring to spend space-program resources on the fool's errand of solving "social" problems on Earth before continuing exploration of space.)

It's time for Astronauts Episode XVIII to pick up where Astronauts Episode XVII left off with Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt being the last humans to walk on the Moon (with Ronald Evans as the lunar module pilot). As a reminder of yet another reason for which we would be wise for us to resume aggressive exploration of space, I refer you to my October 15, 2003, commentary here and here.

..
Jan. 13, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040113-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

O'Neill "takes back" claim that Bush is the "blind" leading the "deaf" and says he'd vote for Bush.·

Around the full circle has come The Blind, The Deaf and The Dumb.

Today, Paul O'Neill, whom Bush forced to resign as Secretary of the Treasury in December, 2002, retracted some of his anti-Bush statements, attempted to diminish the harshness of others, and said he would probably vote for Bush in 2004 because he doesn't "see anyone who is better prepared or more capable" than Bush. He admitted that contrary to his recent statements implying that Bush began planning a war in Iraq "from the getgo" in 2001, he (O'Neill) had in fact understood such early-2001 planning by Bush to have been a discussion of ways to implement the U.S. policy adopted in 1998 to seek ways to "change the regime" in Iraq. On NBC's Today show this morning, O'Neill expressed surprise and/or amazement that everyone was focusing more on his "vivid language" describing Bush at cabinet meetings as a "blind man" leading a bunch of "deaf" people than on economic "policy" issues to which he had hoped to draw attention by furnishing 19,000 pages of documents to former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind as material for a book, The Price of Loyalty. Regarding such "vivid language," O'Neill said, "If I could take it back, I would."

In 2002 when I left
the cab'net I wasn't bereft
of papers to show
I tried to bestow
the wisdom I own by myself.

To prove I'm a sage not a bumpkin
I gave all my papers to Suskind
for writing a book,
which now makes me look
like one who for vengeance is lustin'.

I thought I'd be nimble and deft,
but now I confess to myself
the plan I devised
has proved it's I
who's blind and politic'ly deaf.

O'Neill's willingness to muster the humility to concede flaws in his own perceptions and in his portrayals of the motives of others provides a glimpse of the fundamentally decent character he displayed in conveying his legitimate outrage at Senator Byrd for impugning his motives relative to "the poor." (See PoliSat.Com's Feb. 8, 2002 satire/commentary.) It's sad, however, that his resentment over being forced to resign had so sublimated that part of his character that he failed to realize (until after the fact) that his collaboration with Suskind constituted the same type of character assassination towards his former colleagues as Senator Byrd had unfairly and unjustifiably directed toward him. Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

..
Jan. 12, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040112-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

From Martha, suggestions for foiling the risks that a turkey is spoiling..

News reports focusing on Paul O'Neill's disclosures to Ron Suskin and statements to Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" have obscured news that Martha Stewart is now resuming her advice to consumers, which she will continue on a daily basis throughout her trial on securities charges. One suspects her motives for doing so may not be limited to efforts to influence the jury pool. Here's an excerpt from her first installment:

I'm Martha. Today's tip's on foil
and leftovers likely to spoil
without being frozen
on not being chosen
while serving or else they will spoil.

A leftover turkey is ample
to show what I mean by example.
When serving is stopped,
the turkey cannot
be saved unless cooling is ample.

A turkey can safely get older
if sealed well at freezing or colder
but surely will spoil
if wrapped just in foil
especially the type from Alcoa.

PoliSat.Com obtained this highly confidential memo from Martha Stewart to George Bush regarding his obvious failure to properly handle a turkey no longer suitable for serving in a manner sufficient to prevent spoiling. Bush must not have read the Peter Principle, or else he would have laterally "promoted" Paul O'Neill to a suitable ambassadorship to Latvia or made him a roaming ambassador with Bono rather than forcing him to resign. On the other hand, in the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act, O'Neill should have had the decency to show mercy to a blind president and his deaf cabinet members. On the other hand, if O'Neill was genuinely shocked that discussions of possible ways to force a change of regime in Iraq occurred early in the Bush administration, perhaps O'Neill is the one suffering from blindness and deafness with respect to the long-understood fact that since 1998 the official policy of the U.S. government was to change the regime in Iraq. Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

| Get Political-Satire Daily Updates by email | Become a PoliSat.Com Affiliate | Tell a friend about us | Search PoliSat.Com |
| Index to recent Daily Updates | Index to Archives of Daily Updates | View most recent animation | Index to Animations |

..

..
Jan. 11, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040111-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

No update today (Sunday, January 11, 2004).

..
Jan. 10, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040110-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)·

O'Neill claims national security insight into Bush's pre-9-11 plans to topple Saddam.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, forced by Bush to resign in December, 2002, now says that before 9-11, Bush ordered plans for ousting Saddam. O'Neill made this statement and others critical of Bush in an interview previously taped for broadcast tomorrow by CBS on 60 Minutes. He had previously expressed similar criticisms to "journalist Ron Suskind" for inclusion in Suskind's forthcoming book, The Price of Loyalty, which Suskind says he based on interviews of O'Neill and other administration officials and also on documents O'Neill furnished to him. News reports attributed O'Neill's forced resignation to his opposition to the final round of tax cuts.

O'Neill alleges that Bush embraced the final round of tax-cut legislation despite having previously asked, "Haven't we already given money to rich people ... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" CBS says the book quotes O'Neill as having said Bush was so disengaged in cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." According to CBS, O'Neill says, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on...I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening...It was mostly a monologue."

Before resigning, O'Neill had become well-known for controversial statements such as comments that worsened a financial crisis in Brazil. One of the most memorable events involved a Senate-hearing dispute between O'Neill and Senator Robert Byrd over who endured the worst poverty in their respective childhoods. O'Neill seems to be a decent sort of fellow, but one wonders the extent to which the mode of his resignation adversely influences the objectivity of his retrospection.

In last-cent'ry's year 98
both Congress and Clinton embraced
enactments proposing
the goal of deposing
Saddam before waiting too late.

The fear was that sanctions would soon
be ended and then he'd resume
his weapons construction
for massive destruction
so neighbors would dance to his tunes.

However, from year 98
'til 2000's end we did wait
as though to propose
Saddam be deposed
too soon would be worse than too late.

Since planning remained to be done
beginning in 2001,
it shouldn't surprise
that plans were devised
a long time before Nine-One-One.

Before Nine-Eleven we thought
containing Saddam could be wrought
by mass-redeployment
of means for enforcement
of sanctions, whose ending he'd sought.

Deployments of means to contain
Saddam could incentivize change
replacing Hussein
in bargains to gain
reductions in sanctions maintained.

But Nine-One-One's terror revealed
such mass-redeployment would yield
a greater incentive
for terror intended
to drive us from Arabic fields.

Thereafter, a mass-redeployment
as means for containment enforcement
Saddam would desire
for stoking the fires
for more Nine-One-One type deployments.

Ostensibly, O'Neill's work at Alcoa didn't prepare him for evaluating discussions of contingency plans as apart of the national policy set in 1998 to seek to force a change of the regime in Iraq. Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

..
Jan. 9, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040109-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)·

The Legacy of "Rose is a Rose" isn't Lying on Betting but Betting on Lying.·

If "rose is a rose" permits vying
for Fame despite betting and lying,
for lying on betting
it's time for forgetting
and likewise for betting on lying.

The legacy standards requiring
confessions of betting and lying
require me to state
my biggest mistake
was betting on Monica lying.

Pete Rose's current campaign to gain recognition of his legacy in the Hall of Fame shows he was not only lying on betting but also was betting on lying. PoliSat.Com has exclusively learned from sources that are highly reliable, if not reliably high, that Pete Rose will be inducted into the Hall of Fame in recognition of his indisputable achievements for the most consecutive years of betting on lying by lying on betting. Such action will foster hope for another of the last century's most accomplished liars in his continuing campaign seeking proper recognition of his legacy. Speaking strictly off the record, Clinton boasted that his record surpasses Pete Rose's record as grounds for posterity's recognition of an enduring legacy because in more consecutive years he made more hits and scored more often and has court settlements to prove it. However, according to Washington insiders insisting on remaining anonymous, Hillary Clinton told her closest advisors that Bill only scored once for the home team.
·
| Get Political-Satire Daily Updates by email | Become a PoliSat.Com Affiliate | Tell a friend about us | Search PoliSat.Com |
| Index to recent Daily Updates | Index to Archives of Daily Updates | View most recent animation | Index to Animations |

..

..
Jan. 8, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040108-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)·

Fundraising by "Doctors for Dean" elicits palindromic response: Draw oh $, Howard.

A friend who's a Doctor named Paul
by brotherly Docs was appalled
by letters for Dean
requesting he glean
his assets to fund Howard's maul.

Since copies to me in reply
invited my help to advise
if more he should say,
I wrote this array
of all-palindromic¹ replies:

1. Re: Draft on patinaed Dean, I tap not, farder.

2. Me? Views re draft on patinaed Dean? I tap not. Farders? We I.V. 'em.

3. Ahah! A tide you buoyed-- I recap: Snide ego patinaed Dean, it apogeed in space ride; you buoyed it -- a ha-ha!

4. Hate, tirade, ego patinaed Dean, it apogeed-- a rite-- TAH²!

5. Dud='04'-4x4=88-4x4='72 as a redux. Exude recap: Snide ego patinaed Dean; it apogeed in space-- redux exuder as a '72+4x4='88+4x4='04=dud.

6. Display kook's toots: Parse patinaed Dean-- it apes, raps, toots kooky Al's I.D.

7. To be e-PAC serene I won't fard $ on patinaed Dean; I tap no $; draft no wiener; escape e-bot.

8. Draw oh $, Howard.

I wrote this by invitation implied by receipt of copies of correspondence between a surgeon friend and "Doctors for Dean." I agree Dean needs doctors, but not for fundraising. Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

·¹·Palindromic is the adjective case version of "palindrome," a series of words and/or numbers expressing the same thing whether read forward or backward. For more PoliSat.Com palindromes and links to the works of much better palindromists than yours truly, go here.

········
Jan. 1--7, 2004: No updates-- Editor on extended Christmas/New-Year Holiday.
--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.·
| Get Political-Satire Daily Updates by email | Become a PoliSat.Com Affiliate | Tell a friend about us | Search Polisat.Com |
| Index to recent Daily Updates | Index to Archives of Daily Updates | View most recent animation | Index to Animations |

......
For the Daily Update immediately preceding the one above, click here.
·

.