·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, ·


WWW PoliSat.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  


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  #01Political 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  #01Political 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  #01Political 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  #01Political 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  #01Political 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.