|
·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, ·
|
|
This is the archive for Daily Updates for the period from
July 26-- July 31, 2004, appearing below in reverse chronological order.
July
31, 2004 #01: No update for July 31, 2004. Editor away.
In-laws' anniversary celebration.
July 30,
2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary
but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent Link
to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
John
Kerry deserves credit and thanks but owes better explanations.·
One could not consider John Kerry's service to our country and proven physical
courage without feeling admiration and gratitude. In his acceptance speech
last night, Kerry tried to convey to the country at large that he has
resurrected the Scoop Jackson/John Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party. It such were
to be the case, it would be to the shock and objection to a large portion (if
not a majority) of the Democratic power structure upon which he must depend and
to which he is loyal. It's a power structure exemplified by activists who
booed a genuine Scoop Jackson/John Kennedy Democrat (Joe Lieberman)
during the primary.
Intellectually
Nuanced Analysis (see also 20040728-01).
One could theorize that if he were to become President and thereby potentially
become unshackled from the Left that he would actually govern as a Scoop
Jackson/John Kennedy Democrat, but his history in the Senate exposes the
tenuously speculative nature of such theory. His proven instances of
genuine physical courage, coupled with the history of his political career, make
it seem more likely that he is one who possesses physical courage yet lacks the
insights and judgment for political leadership in the executive branch.
There is a dramatic difference between one's ability to make instantaneous
(often illogical) decisions to take actions exhibiting physical courage
on the one hand and making executive decisions requiring vision and foresight on
the other. See "Kerry
versus Kerry versus Kerry." Great lieutenants can make
terrible generals. Great tacticians can make terrible strategists.
Kerry's fond of describing his way of analyzing problems as "intellectually
nuanced," but his inconsistencies and equivocations make it seem more
likely that his political decision-making process exhibits indecisiveness and
equivocation born of an insatiable desire that no judgmental decision could
in hindsight be deemed flawed. These qualities may be excellent for
legislative responsibilities but not for executive, political decision-making
such as the Presidency requires-- especially in the post-9-11 era in which we have
little, or no, strategic margin for error. If Kerry sincerely
believes that the current war on terror makes combat experience a sine qua
non qualification for the presidency, why did he not pick Wesley Clark for
his combat experience from lieutenant to general as his candidate for a vice
president most qualified to assume command of the war on terror if the
unspeakable were to happen to a President Kerry?
Kerry said to American military personnel that he would never commit them to war
without a plan to "win the peace." If he were to have applied
the same logic to his decision on whether to steer his swift-boat into gunfire
to save his crewmate, he would have declined to do so for lack of a guarantee
that he'd be able to successfully take his entire crew out of danger and into
safety after rescuing his crewmate. He made the "right" (though
perhaps illogical) decision because the circumstances forced him to make a
decision without worrying about the margin of error. What he fails to
understand about the post-9-11 world is that 9-11 deprived us of the luxury of
the kind of margin-of-error analysis that Kerry now says he would have applied
in dealing with Saddam Hussein.
Other than Kerry's naked assurances that if he were President he would
"restore" cooperative attitudes on the part of our "allies"
(translate: France and Germany), he utterly failed to offer any persuasive
reason for any rational person to believe that France and Germany would be more
likely to send their soldiers to die alongside American soldiers under a
President Kerry than under President Bush. Indeed, the only rational basis
for assuming France and Germany would be more "cooperative" with a
President Kerry than President Bush would be to assume that Kerry would in fact do
what he nevertheless says he would not do-- i.e., yield some
measure of decision-making on U.S. national interests to France and/or Germany
and/or the United Nations. This would not be because he would want to
disserve U.S. national interests (he's obviously at least as patriotic as any
and more patriotic than most); rather, it would be because he's afflicted with a
sincere but misguided faith in "internationalism," the United Nations
(a "democracy" of dictatorships), France and, to a lesser extent,
Germany.
If internationalism were to be what Kerry perceives it to be, given what France,
Germany, Russia, China and the U.N. knew (and what they also believed)
about Saddam Hussein in 2002, they would have done the same in 2002 as they did
in 1991-- i.e., unequivocally supported removal of Saddam (from power
in 2002 rather than merely from Kuwait as in 1991). Given
what "internationalism" knew and believed about Saddam Hussein's
commitment to being a power with WMD and given what "internationalism"
knew about the historical patterns of sworn-enemy dictators (such as Stalin and
Hitler) forming temporary alliances of convenience against common enemies, enlightened internationalism would have considered permitting Saddam to
remain in power after 9-11 to be incompatible with the interests of civilization
in minimizing the risks of a dictator such as Saddam covertly collaborating with his otherwise sworn enemy, Usama bin Laden. In reality, the very
forces of internationalism in which Kerry has such great faith were working
actively behind the scenes to support Saddam and undermine U.S. plans to topple
him. Why? They were frantically trying to preserve the economic
rewards they were reaping through illegal deals with Saddam's
regime.
Finally, in an example of remarkably transparent disingenuousness, after
accusing Bush of having "mislead" the country into war by not having "told the truth" in doing so, he addressed "directly to
George Bush" a proposal that each of them "show respect for each other" in
the remainder of the campaign. In other words, "I am free to smear
you but you must respect me." While implicitly but speciously accusing
Bush of treating him with disrespect, Kerry obviously is unwilling to rebuke Ted
Kennedy, Kerry's most enthusiastic supporter, for Kennedy's patently hateful
attacks on Bush. (See also "One
America's Two John Edwards."; See also "Teddy
Then and Teddy Now" and "AlJaTeddya.")
Kerry
the Ungenuous*
I'm
Kerry addressing the nation
to proudly accept nomination
to run against Bush,
and so I must push
my role in heroic salvation.
Moreover,
I'll stoop to imply
that Bush sent our soldiers to die
preventing Saddam
from making The Bomb
on strategies founded on lies.
And
then after smearing his name,
I haughtily call him by name
to urge him to show
respect and forego
exposing my flip-flopping game.
Of
course while I smugly condemn
his ads on my flip-flopping binge,
I can't muster courage
to even discourage
Ted Kennedy's hatefulness binge.
Regarding respectful campaigning, Kerry, like John
Edwards (here), can talk the talk but
won't walk the walk-- otherwise, they would forcefully and unequivocally condemn
the hatefulness of attacks on Bush by their most prominent supporters such as
Ted Kennedy (here,
here,
here,
and here,
for examples). Although it's conveniently forgotten by the media, Bush did forcefully
and unequivocally condemn the hateful attacks on McCain in the infamous South
Carolina primary.
*This
is poetic license for lack of genuine sincerity-- i.e., a semantic close cousin
to disingenuousness.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
July 29,
2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary
but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent Link
to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
John
Edwards' "two Americas" speech reveals one
America's two John Edwards-- "Edwards the Allegator" (one who
"alleges" things) and "Edwards the Blind-Deaf-Mute."·
Last night John Edwards delivered a lawyerly, polished, beguiling speech
invoking his theme to change what he calls "two Americas" into
"one America." As he did in most of his primary-campaign
speeches, his speech mostly made positive assertions of promises utilizing the
the "up to" advertising gimmick so prevalent in misleading
"sale" advertisements targeting women shoppers. (Think of the
typical ads promising that "everything" in the store will be "on
sale" at "up to" 50-percent-off "and more.")
Edwards offered "average Americans" a laundry list of promises of
"tax benefits" always defined by a large dollar amount modified by the
phrase "up to." Slickness.
However, Edwards' most egregiously false allegation (that's what lawyers do--
they allege things) was that "hateful politics" in the campaign had
emanated from Bush against Kerry rather than from Democrats (including Kerry)
against Bush. Thus, John Edwards' "two Americas"
speech unwittingly revealed America's "two Edwards": "Edwards
the Allegator" (not the animal but a person, such as a lawyer, who
"alleges" things) and "Edwards the Blind-Deaf-Mute."
Edwards the Allegator makes the specious allegations. Edwards
the Blind-Deaf-Mute feigns being incapable of seeing, hearing or condemning
relentless ad-hominem, patently hateful attacks on Bush by prominent Democrats
(including Kerry) whose support Edwards uncritically
welcomes. This revelation prompts two questions-- one
for each of the two John Edwards:
Question for Edwards the Allegator: What specific
examples of "negative" attacks on Kerry by Bush can you cite to
support your allegation of a "relentless negative campaign" by Bush
against Kerry? Do you mean the Bush ads featuring video-clips of Kerry's
self-contradictory statements? If that's an example of what you disparage
as "hateful" campaigning, there's no such thing as a "fair"
campaign ad.
If a Bush speech were criticize the "hateful campaign" against him,
the dominant media would feign ignorance by demanding specifics. Will the
dominant media (the auxiliary campaign arm for the Democratic ticket) demand
that Edwards give specific examples to support his specious allegation of a
"hateful" campaign by Bush against Kerry? Of course
not!
Question for Edwards the Blind-Deaf-Mute: (This multi-part
question paraphrases questions in "Blowing in the Wind.") How
many ears must an Edwards have before he can hear the hateful attacks on Bush by
Ted Kennedy* (here),
Howard Dean** (here),
and other prominent Democrats whose support Edwards uncritically solicits and
accepts? How many eyes must an Edwards have before he can see such
hate? How many mouths must an Edwards have before he can condemn such
hateful attacks?
What has Bush said about Kerry that's even remotely similar to Ted Kennedy's
hateful allegation that Bush "hatched" plans for the war in Iraq for
"political advantage" and to further the "financial
interests" of his supporters? Why have you not specifically and
unequivocally condemned such hateful attack by Kennedy? What has Bush said
about Kerry that's even remotely similar to Dean's comments on National Public
Radio spreading the "theory" that Bush knew in advance about the plans
for 9-11? What has Bush said about Kerry that's even remotely similar to
Kerry's description of the Republicans as "crooks and liars."?
Why have you refused to unequivocally condemn such hateful statements? Why
have you not expressed unequivocal disapproval of Jimmy Carter having the
hateful propagandist, Michael Moore, as a guest in his box at the Democratic
Convention? Why have you not unequivocally condemned the hateful
advertisements against Bush by MoveOn.Org, NotInOurName.Org, and other
organizations prominently supporting, and prominently receiving approval from,
prominent Democrats supporting Kerry?
One
America's Two Edwards.
My
speeches describe two Americas
but also reveal two Ewardians
A slick allegator***
(a lawyer inveigher)
and deaf, blind and muted Edwardian.
I'll
first show you Edwards the Allegator
whose lawyerly skills as a flak-purveyor
can glibly mislead
the folks to believe
that Bush's campaign is a hate-purveyor.
I'm
Edwards, who's handsome and cute
and claims Bush misuses the truth
'cause ads showing Kerry
in flip-flops recurring
are hurtful and hateful to boot.
Such
hateful campaign I condemn
and hereby demand it be stemmed
so Dubya's campaign
from hate will refrain,
like ours, which with good-nature brims.
And
now I'll show self number two:
I'm Edwards who's deaf-blind-and-mute
regarding the aims
of Democrat claims
on why to give Dubya the boot.
When
Ted claims that Bush started war
'cause profits by friends he was for,
I can't hear or see
it hateful to be
and can't call them claims to abhor.
If Edwards were to be genuinely interested in ending "hateful"
campaigning, he would explicitly and unequivocally repudiate the hateful
allegations against Bush by Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Al Sharpton,
Dennis Kucinich and repudiate similarly hateful allegations by prominent
pro-Democrat groups and individuals such as Michael Moore, MoveOn.Org,
NotInOurName.Org, Tim Robbins, Whoopi Cushion Goldberg, Alex Baldwin, Al
Franken, and the numerous secular
bigots**** (here)
in the Entertainment Left. By the way, Joe Lieberman, an honorable man who
is genuinely interested in ending "hateful" campaigning, has
explicitly condemned such hateful allegations.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
*Examples
of a few of Ted Kennedy's numerous hateful attacks on Bush: AlJaTeddya;
GandersAtSaucesForGeese;
TedKerry'sHind'sKennedy;
TeddyThenAndTeddyNow.
**Example
of one of Dean's numerous hateful attacks on Bush: DoctorOfBlame.
***Allegator
isn't a misspelling of alligator; rather, it's poetic-license slang for one who
makes allegations
****By
the way, I'm a non-believer but I'm not a secular bigot or secular
fundamentalist-- For an explanation, go here
and then click the links for "Secular Fundamentalists" near the top of
that page under "Religion.".
July 28,
2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary
but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent Link
to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Kerry
versus Kerry versus Kerry: John
Kerry's multiple political personality leads to invention of Political
Personality Forecast Machine.·
It doesn't diminish the nobility of heroism and courage to recognize that one's
possession or demonstration of such traits does not by itself vest one with
wisdom. Indeed, it's not uncommon for people able to summon extraordinary
courage and heroism in particular circumstances to lack the judgment and skills
to perform successfully and decisively in other contexts.
Determining whether one who demonstrated noble valor is suitably qualified for
other roles requires evaluation of such person's performance in contexts
relevant to such other roles. Although this is a daunting task, technology
has provided the answer. PoliSat.Com proudly announces its invention of the
Political Personality Scope capable of revealing the full range of political
personalities of political candidates.
Some who demonstrate the capacity to make critical, instantaneous decisions
exhibiting noble courage succumb to intellectual paralysis when confronted with
decision-making responsibilities in other contexts affording the decision-maker
the opportunity to evaluate a broad range of choices. What causes this
phenomenon?
Intellectually
Nuanced Analysis a.k.a. Indecisiveness.
Highly valuing the nobility of risking one's life for another can motivate one
to instantaneously undertake such risks regardless of whether the chances
of success may be so low that failure would motivate others in hindsight to
judge such action as foolish though morally noble. Such person's moral
reward is not an assurance of success but rather the moral certitude about the
moral rightness of the effort. Paradoxically, the desire to be morally
noble can lead to intellectual paralysis in other contexts affording
opportunities for reflection rather than demanding instantaneous
decision-making. For some such people, the desire for moral certitude
makes them ineffective and unwise decision-makers in other contexts by
motivating them to always seek a course of action that could not be deemed
foolish or morally unsound in hindsight. Obviously, this does not
make them "bad" people, but it can make them poor leaders. John
Kerry seems to be such a person.
A person capable of heroism and suitable for legislative responsibilities may be
too wedded to a desire for moral certitude to be an effective executive.
When Churchill, Roosevelt and Eisenhower planned Operation Overlord, they did
not have the luxury of expecting such plan to guarantee success or prevent
disasters of both large and small proportions. Many rangers died climbing Pointe du Hoc
in a mission designed on flawed intelligence. Did they die in vain?
Of course not. Churchill, Roosevelt and Eisenhower correctly understood
the stakes to be high enough to deny them the luxury of achieving optimal
margins of error in strategic and tactical planning.
George W. Bush correctly discerned the most important lesson of 9-11: It
showed the stakes to be too high to afford us the luxury of seeking optimal
margins of error in tactical and strategic planning in a world-wide war against
us by barbaric adherents to medieval fanaticism. Regardless of whether
Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Ladan were to have been sworn ideological
adversaries, history has taught us that shared hatred of others often motivate
such sworn enemies sooner or later to forge tactical and/or strategic
alliances. Remember the pacts between Hitler and Stalin before World War
II?
Given the decades of history of Saddam Hussein's behavior and capabilities,
given that intelligence services reasonably believed he still possessed weapons
of mass destruction, given that intelligence services also reasonably believed
that even if such were not the case, he would resume developing them at the
earliest opportunity, given that there would have been increasing motivations
for Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden to sooner or later collaborate against
their common enemy rather than merely maintaining contacts; given the fact that
to maintain pressure on Saddam Hussein to "cooperate" with U.N.
inspectors would have required us to maintain in the region a military force
many times larger than the token-size force whose presence Usama bin Laden cited
as part of the justification for 9-11, it would have been foolish for Bush to
have done otherwise than to topple Saddam Hussein sooner rather than
later. Why would we want a leader who would wait until the threat were to
be "imminent" and the dangers and risks of casualties were to be far
greater? Fortunately, Bush, unlike Kerry, has the vision and wisdom to
make such executive decisions with full knowledge that 9-11 showed the stakes to
be too high to afford us the luxury of optimizing the minimization of risks.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com
July 27,
2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary
but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent Link
to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Bill
Clinton speech at DNC invokes velvet demagoguery; Hillary Clinton speech
imitates John Kerry's speaking style; Peanut King Jimmy Carter shows affinity
for nuts by having Michael Moore sit with Rosaline and him.·
Early ratings indicate that fewer Americans than expected turned-in last night
for the latest screening of the long-running cult-movie, the Clinton
Horror Picture Show [here],
at the Democratic Convention in Boston. Perhaps the old cult movie is
losing its grip on some previously addicted to it. While Hillary Clinton's
speech imitated the speechifying tone of John Kerry, Bill Clinton's speech
predictably invoked the velvet demagoguery at which he's unsurpassed. Al
Gore feigned humility even though he still doesn't understand that he has so
much about which to be genuinely humble. Jimmy Carter, the former Peanut
King, showed his affinity for nuts by having Michael Moore [see
Drudge photo (on right below main Drudge logo)] sit with Rosaline and
him.
Although Bill Clinton rightly invoked John Kerry's swift-boat heroism in
braving enemy fire to save a crewman in the water, he incorrectly equated such
heroism with wisdom and vision. George McGovern, who repeatedly
demonstrated heroism in World War II as a bomber pilot, lacked the wisdom and
vision later shown by Ronald Reagan in predicting the fall of the Soviet Empire
and demanding the dismantlement of the Berlin Wall. Despite Kerry's
demonstrated capacity for heroism, he suffers the same lack of vision as did
McGovern (and Dukakis and Mondale). Kerry's capacity for personal courage
has not translated into political courage. His demonstrations of political
"courage" seem to be limited to courageous
hindsight as a substitute for lack of visionary foresight [link].
Bill Clinton's speech invoked velvet demagoguery predicated upon one of the
Democratic Party's most cherished articles of faith that earnings of individuals
belong to the government so that a reduction of their taxes is the equivalent
"taking" money from "the poor" and giving it to "the
rich." This was merely a softer, more velvet reprise of Clinton's
themes in the 1990's that Republicans wanted to take food and shelter from the
poor, the children and the elderly in order to "give" money to
"the rich." Given the dramatic growth in the percentage of
families owning stock and beginning to learn the realities of free-market
economics, such velvet demagoguery is likely to fall on more deaf ears than in
the 1990's.
The content and tone of the speeches last night highlight a fundamental
reality: That the Democratic Party recognizes that to have a hope of
winning, it must feign centrism to mask the far-left-of-center posture of the
vast majority of those now holding most sway over the Party. The
Lieberman/Bayh wing-- heir to the Scoop Jackson wing-- is at its
nadir. The Democratic Party's Nader wing, which is currently conducting a diversionary
campaign [here],
is at its zenith. One can assume that Nader will stay in the race even if
near the election it were to appear that his doing so would prevent Kerry from
winning. One could likewise assume Michael Moore would retract the lies
and distortions in Fahrenheit 911 [here
and here]
a.k.a. FareInHypeNeinEnleavened.
Despite the ostensibly warm (but stilted) support for Kerry expressed by Hillary
in her speech, it was insufficient to answer the intriguing question about the
extent to which Kerry's
Achilles Heel [here]
will contribute to his defeat. One can assume Hillary wants Kerry to win,
but, of course, one can also assume aliens visited Roswell.
July 26,
2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary
but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent Link
to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Insights
about John Kerry, George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, France, Ronald Reagan,
"old" Europe, "new" Europe, the Soviet Union, Iraq, terror,
tyranny, freedom, vision, courage and leadership.·
Since returning from a trip to Poland and the Czech Republic from June 26
through July 7, 2004, today is the first time that progress on other
responsibilities has permitted resumption of this column. Many important
things happened in the interim, some of which would be suitable targets for
humorous satire, some for polemic satire and some for serious commentary.
Reflection on the trip inspires greater faith in the endurance of the human
spirit for freedom and also inspires serious thoughts relevant to the current
political debate raging worldwide as well as in the the 2004 U.S. election
campaign. Such reflection bore fruit in the form of the following
series of limerick stanzas:
Courageous
Hindsight versus Visionary Foresight.
Since
June 22, I've not
opined in this internet spot
because 'til today
since going away
to Europe, the time I've had not.
The
Europe I sampled was not
the Europe of France's Chirac--
The Czechs' new Republic
and Poland's republic
I saw like Jacques' Europe are not.
The
welcoming treatment received
derived from the fact, I perceived,
that old-Europe views
by Jacques Chirac spewed
the new-Europe doesn't believe.
In
Jacques' Europe, all but the old
have not lived in tyranny's fold,
but mem'ries abound
in new-Europe's towns
of tyrants in more than "the old."
In
new-Europe, most can remember
demands that the Russians dismember
the Soviet Bloc
in Europe were not
embraced until Reagan's agenda.
'Til
Reagan, the old-Europe showed
belief that repression imposed
by tyranny's boot
on liberty's roots
could safeguard its own status quo.
That
Reagan showed vision beyond
the "experts" in Paris and Bonn
gave east-Europeans
the faith to them freedom
would sooner, not never, belong.
So
new-Europeans refrain
from viewing the Yanks with disdain
as done by Chirac
because what begot
their freedom were Yankee campaigns.
Like
Reagan, and unlike Chirac,
the vision of Bush for Iraq
is founded on wisdom
that freedom's condition
can flourish when tyranny's stopped.
But
Kerry, in contrast, does not
distinguish himself from Chirac.
'Though courage he showed
commanding his boat,
a leader with vision he's not.
The
Intellectual Left,
like Kerry, is sadly bereft
of vision to see
the future to be
defined by the tasks we accept.
Their
vision's confined to their hope
to build a consensus to cope
with tyranny's threats,
which sadly begets
conditions for tyranny's growth.
The
vision of Leftists and Kerry
shows patterns that warrant our worry:
They mocked the demands
that Reagan began
for toppling The Wall in a hurry.
They
chose to oppose and berate
ejecting Saddam from Kuwait.
If what they'd have done
by Bush had been done,
Saddam armed with nukes we'd now face.
'Though
courage is surely a vital
requirement for leadership titles,
a leadership mission
with limited vision
is less than to which we're entitled.
'Though
Kerry is right to explain
his courage, he's wrong to disdain
the flying of planes
by Bush. which McCain
described as quite dangerous planes.
So
Kerry is wrong to imply
that Bush has less courage to strive
to do what is best
for freedom to rest
securely in progenies' lives.
But
Dubya is right in asserting
the limited vision of Kerry
revealed by his votes
impedes, not promotes,
contentions for voting for Kerry.
Suppose that before 9-11 Bush (or Clinton) were to have "connected"
enough "dots" to have ample reason to believe such an attack was being
planned in Afghanistan. Suppose on the basis of such conclusions, Bush (or
Clinton) were to have launched a preemptive attack on Afghanistan. Suppose
that at the conclusion of such attack, Bush (or Clinton) were to have been
unable to produce evidence of such plot. Without 9-11 having occurred, the
world-- as well as Bush's (or Clinton's) political opponents-- would have been
far more harsh and scathing in condemning such "preemptive" action
than even the unjustifiably harsh condemnation now being heaped upon Bush for
preemptive action in the face of dots begging to be connected regarding Saddam
Hussein's intentions and capabilities with respect to weapons of mass
destruction. Both scenarios demonstrate the unsoundness of predicating
moral judgments of prior decisions upon after-the-fact knowledge rather than the
reasonableness of the conclusions at the time of the decisions.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com
Installment
immediately preceding the one above, go
here.
Other sites that feature
PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here
to view our Affiliates page.
·
