·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  


Archives-- Installments for October 1 through 10, 2004, starting below in reverse chronological order.




Oct. 10, 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.

Australians re-elect John Howard-- Aussies rebuke John Kerry and embrace George Bush-- Thanks from the Yanks playing Waltzing Matilda-- Commentary.

            To express our thanks to Australians for solidly re-electing John Howard on October 9, 2004, by whose courageous decision Australian troops are supporting American troops in Iraq, we're displaying the insignia of the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force linked to the Australian Navy Band's version of Waltzing Matilda, the much-beloved unofficial Australian National Anthem.   No doubt it's a boost to the morale of our troops that Australians solidly rejected Howard's opponent, Mark Latham, who campaigned on a platform echoing John Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" theme and promising to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas if he were to have won. This historic vote in Australia repudiated John Kerry's Simultaneous Flip-Flop being peddled in Australia by Latham with vocal support from representatives of the Kerry Campaign in Australia as a part of his international campaign for absentee votes by Americans abroad.  

            To show Yankee appreciation for Aussie steadfastness, click any of the images below to play the "unofficial" Australian National Anthem, Waltzing Matilda.  Doing this will trigger the website of the Australian Navy Band to play Waltzing Matilda and will say "thanks" from the "Yanks" to the Australian military.  (It may take a couple of minutes for it to load at dialup speed, but it's worth the wait as a way to say to the Aussies, "Thanks from the Yanks" for sticking with us.)



Perhaps Australians' recognition of the degree of Yankee appreciation for their steadfastness will inspire them to increase their support for us.  Everyone knows the Howard administration's fear of being ousted by what had appeared to be strong pro-Kerry, anti-Bush sentiment in Australia had imposed a practical limitation on Howard's ability to strengthen Australia's support for Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Thanks from the Yanks.
Lyrics by Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com, to be sung to the tune of Waltzing Matilda.  To sing the lyrics with the tune, click here or click one of the images above.


Brave Yankee soldiers 
serving in a foreign land
facing the threats 
of the terror hordes
found support as they heard 
that wonderful Down-Under sound:
"Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?
Waltzing Matilda,
Waltzing Matilda,
Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?"
And they joined with the Mates 
and sang the great Down-Under song:
"Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?"


             To view the animation illustrating Kerry's Simultaneous Flip-Flop, click here or click the image to the right.  The entire text of the September 28, 2004, commentary which that animation illustrates is here.  Apart from the Australian election results exhibiting a repudiation of Latham's intensely anti-war campaign echoing John Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" platform, its seems obvious that the same results strengthen Bush's "right war, right place, right time" platform even in the international arena despite the dissatisfaction, and surely to the consternation, of the French.

            It will be interesting to see how the dominant media-- such as ABC News (here), CBS News (here) and NBC News (here) -- "spin" the victory in Australia.  Doubtless, they will want to minimize the extent to which it strengthens Bush against Kerry.  Can other media counter-balance the dominant media's likely effort to do so?  If the current trend of self-discrediting behavior by the dominant media continues, the answer is undoubtedly yes.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com



Additional installment of Political Satire/Commentary for Oct. 9, 2004:  
Go to http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/Archives041001--041031/du20y04m10d09-0102.htm.



Oct. 9, 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.

Town-Hall Debate-- In second Bush-Kerry debate, John Kerry makes Clintonesque denial:  "I did not have different positions with that war, Iraq"; George Bush smirks again.

            Reeling from the initial question posed at the Bush-Kerry Town Hall debate by a questioner asking what she should tell her co-workers who say Kerry "waffles too much,"  John Kerry paused, stood erect and thrust a firm response:  "I have have not had changes in my positions with that war."  In his response to Kerry's answer, George Bush asked (with an irksome smirk), "Does that depend on what the meaning of 'position' 'is' ?"  

            Midway though the debate, one of the questioners asked Kerry how he planned to solve the health-care problems caused by frivolous medical-malpractice lawsuits.  Kerry surprised everyone by stating that he could support some limitations but also stressed the importance of a Patients' Bill of Rights to sue doctors for malpractice, such as the breach of confidentiality by a cosmetic surgeon leaking to the media the fact that a presidential candidate received injections of Botox to achieve a less aged appearance.  In a brief rebuttal to Kerry's answer to this health-care question, Bush took pains to make facial expressions drawing attention to the wrinkles and age-lines on his face in reasserting his position in favor of imposing caps on punitive damages and attorney's fees.

            One of the questioners asked Kerry to explain how his plan for Iraq would differ from Bush's plan.  Kerry responded that he would "bring more allies to the table."  Response to Kerry's answer, Bush explained the inherently contradictory nature of Kerry's claim that he could persuade more "allies" to join what Kerry now describes as "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."  Although Bush alluded to those portions of the Duelfer Report indicating that Saddam Hussein was "gaming the system" of the "oil for food" program to continue undermining the sanctions, diplomatic restraints prevented him from saying what he wanted to say.  However, PoliSat.Com's top-secret, parabolic brain-wave reader intercepted Bush's thought patterns to reveal what Bush wanted to say:

We now know from the Duelfer Report and from the revelations in the ongoing investigation of the U.N.-run "Oil for Food" program that the "allies" that Kerry says he could "bring to the table" have been "at the table" all along except that were there for the limited purpose of taking bribes under the table from Saddam Hussein to defeat the very sanctions those "allies" were falsely claiming they were "supporting."

            When the last questioner asked Bush to list and explain "three mistakes" he's made as President, he declined to do so.  Again, PoliSat.Com's top-secret, parabolic brain-wave reader was able to detect the three examples Bush wanted to list.  Here's our translation showing how he wanted to answer the question:

My first mistake was taking the word of the French given to Colin Powell and me that they would not oppose the use of force, my second mistake was not then understanding that the Axis of Weasels, masquerading as our "allies" on the U.N. Security Counsel, were  accepting Oil-For-Food bribes from Saddam Hussein to sabotage our efforts to enforce U.N. sanctions, and my third mistake was assuming that Senator Kerry would not try to weasel out of his vote authorizing the use of force.

            During the post-debate spin, ABC News was trying to explain the latest discovery of Dan Ratherism being prevalent within ABC News.   Meanwhile, Chris Matthews and NBC News' Brian Williams were trying to determine the best way to quote Bush out of context in such a way as to convey the opposite meaning of what he said in the same way they quoted Dick Cheney so completely out of context on October 6, 2004, as to falsely portray a prior statement by Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press" as though it contradicted, rather than supported, Cheney's statement during the Cheney-Edwards debate that he had never claimed Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack.  Doubting that MSNBC and NBC will long preserve the record of these distortions, PoliSat.Com has incorporated them into a special page aptly titled:  "Chris Matthews and Brian Williams Slander Dick Cheney" (here).

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.




Oct. 8, 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.

Bush-Kerry debate-- Old Kerry Wine in New Kerry Bottle-- There he goes again-- Will John Kerry repeat in Town Hall Debate the enemy propaganda he endorsed in the first debate with George W. Bush?

            In the first debate, John Kerry sought tactical political advantage by making a claim against George W. Bush calculated to reinforce the defamation spread by enemy propaganda-- i.e., the false, defamatory claim that Bush's "real" purpose in launching Operation Iraqi Freedom was for the United States to "seize" Iraq's oil.  How did Kerry do this?  He made the statement that when Baghdad fell, "the only building" our forces "protected" was the "oil" ministry.  

            Kerry knows, as does anyone who was paying attention at the time, that Baghdad "fell" far sooner than we had expected.  Kerry knows that the eleventh-hour refusal of Turkey keep its word to allow the 4th Infantry Division to enter Baghdad from the north had given our forces every reason to expect far greater difficulty in "taking" Baghdad and the area we now call the Sunni Triangle.  He knows we weren't prepared for Saddam's forces, agents, etc. to suddenly abandon Baghdad-- Kerry, like the rest of us, surely remembers that on one day, Baghdad Bob was holding press conferences in Baghdad denying that any American troops had entered any part of the city, and the very next day he, and all the Hussein-regime officials, representatives, "minders" for the media, military personnel, police, suddenly disappeared

            Kerry knows that the primary reason for which our forces were risking their lives to guard the oil wells, the oil refineries, the oil terminal on the Gulf, and the "oil ministry building" was that we expected Saddam Hussein to try to reprise his mass-destruction of the oil industry as he had done in Kuwait in 1991.  Kerry knows that the reason we asked our troops to risk their lives to protect those facilities and that industry was not for us to "seize" it but rather to preserve its viability as a means for Iraq to recover.  Yet, just as in 1971, Kerry was willing to seek tactical political advantage by making a statement to the world that simultaneously defamed the motives of our leaders and provided support to enemy propaganda spreading the same defamation.

            What's the difference between his being willing in 1971 to give testimony in the Senate as a "highly decorated" American soldier accusing his fellow soldiers still serving in Vietnam as engaging in widespread, barbaric "war crimes" as a matter of "policy" throughout the chain of command from top-to-bottom and his being willing in 2004 in the first Bush-Kerry debate to make an assertion supporting the enemy's propagandistic defamation that Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to "control" Iraq's oil.  None!  It's simply the old Kerry wine in a new Kerry bottle.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.


Oct. 7, 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 Rewinds, Rewrites and Replays History by Distorting the Charles Duelfer Report; Oil for Food:  Political Nutrition for Saddam Hussein, France, U.N., et al; Inspections, WMD's, and Sanctions.

            John Kerry is using a distortion of the Charles Duelfer Report to rewind, rewrite and replay history skewed by selective-hindsight revisionism to support a naive assertion that we would be better off if George Bush had declined to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom. To test the sensibility of Kerry's claims now, let's re-wind history and operate on the basis of what the Dulfer Report now says we now know and on the basis of Kerry's claim that relying on indigenous Afghan forces rather than commitment of large American military forces "allowed" Usama bin Laden to "escape" in Tora Bora in December, 2001.  Would we today really have Saddam Hussein "boxed in" so he couldn't harm us or covertly help our enemies harm us?  To test "Scenario No. 1," go here; To test "Scenario No. 2," go here; To test "Scenario No. 3," go here.

1.  Hindsight "Replay" of Kerry Scenario No. 1:

This thought experiment rewinds history, re-writes it with "full hindsight" by assuming that on September 12, 2001, we knew everything about Iraq that we now "know" according to the Charles Duelfer Report.  Then it replays history according to what John Kerry now says (with the benefit of hindsight) he would have then known to be the proper course of action beginning on September 12, 2001.

A.  Assumed Retroactive "Knowledge" on September 12, 2001:

(01)  We'd have known reports from Czech Intelligence that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence before 9-11 could never establish a link between Iraq and 9-11.

(02)  We'd have known Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.

(03)  We'd have known Saddam Hussein had preserved samples of chemicals and biological agents with which he could restart his chemical/biological weapons.

(04)  We'd have known Saddam Hussein had no active nuclear weapons program.

(05)  We'd have known Saddam Hussein had preserved the intellectual capital and design-work for restarting his nuclear weapons program.

(06)  We'd have known Saddam Hussein had not acquired enriched uranium.

(07)  We'd have known that Saddam Hussein wanted to acquire enriched uranium as soon as feasible without such acquisition being detected or prevented.

(08)  We'd have known that "world opinion" would continue blaming U.S. sanctions for the "thousands" of "Iraqi babies" dying each year.

(09)  We'd have known that our "allies" in the U.N. wanted sanctions to be ended.

(10)  We'd have known that the world considered our maintaining the no-fly zones in the northern and southern portions of Iraq to be an unjustified infringement on Iraq's sovereign dignity.

(11)  We'd have known that our "allies" in the U.N, would want us to cease maintaining the no-fly zones.

(12)  As we planned how to dislodge the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan, we'd have known that the Muslim world and French "intellectuals" believed the CIA and the Mossad, rather than Usama bin Laden, perpetrated the 9-11 attack and that thus, the Muslim world and French "intellectuals" would consider our threats to topple the Taliban (unless they were to deliver Usama bin Laden, his subordinates and his fighters into U.S. custody) to be an example of an imperialistic, Christian "crusade" against the "Muslim world."

(13)  We'd have known that hundreds of thousands of Russian troops were ultimately unable to maintain control over Afghanistan.

(14)  We'd have known that some Afghan warlords could be trusted to help us defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but we'd have also known that some (many?) could not be so trusted, and we wouldn't have been abe to be certain which ones would be which.

B. Replay of History according to Kerry's Scenario No. 1:

(01)  Kerry would have "known" Saddam Hussein had no WMD's, and on such basis, Kerry would have assumed that Hussein alone, or in collaboration with the enemy of his enemy (i.e., in collaboration with al Qaeda), could not inflict massive casualties on our residual forces in the Persian Gulf.

(02)  Kerry would have "known" that reliance upon Afghan "warlords" to oust the Taliban would pose a serious risk that some of them would pretend to help us while actively seeking to help the Taliban, al Qaeda or both.

(03)  Kerry, wanting to minimize the risks of being judged harshly in hindsight, would have ordered the military to plan operations in Afghanistan to minimize possibility of 1-B(02) (above) even though the means to do so would:  (a) require massive numbers of U.S. "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan, (b) require a much-longer logistical preparation time, which would thereby give the Taliban and al Qaeda more than enough time to prepare to resist and/or escape, (c) dramatically increase the probably U.S. casualties, (d) make it dramatically harder for Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf to politically cooperate with, rather than to actively oppose, what would appear to be a massive U.S. invasion of Afghanistan rather than relatively limited assistance to indigenous forces opposing the Taliban and al Qaeda.

(04)  Kerry would somehow persuade Musharraf to cooperate with a massive invasion of Afghanistan by a U.S. military force large enough to avoid the risks of needing to rely upon indigenous war-lords to topple the Taliban and/or capture bin Laden-- i.e., a force comparable in size to the one we amassed in the 1991 Persian Gulf War for the relatively easier task of evicting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.  (Keep in mind that the size of our military in 2001 was approximately half the size of our military at the time of the Persian Gulf War in 1991.)

(05)  By late December, 2001, at the earliest, or late Spring, 2002, at the latest, the massive invasion of Afghanistan ordered by Kerry would commence.  (Here, I'm giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt in even assuming that one who voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which the U.N. formally supported, would have invaded Afghanistan at all-- frankly, I seriously doubt it.)  By this time, Usama bin Laden would have moved from Afghanistan into the no-man's-land portion of Pakistan knowing that Pakistan would not allow any massive invasion of those areas by U.S. military forces.  In departing Afghanistan, bin Laden and his supporters would have had ample time to avoid leaving information, video-tapes, etc. behind-- Consequently, that video-tape in which bin Laden bragged about masterminding 9-11 would not have been discovered and would not have been played for the world as it was in reality in October, 2001, when we discovered it.  [Don't forget that even long after worldwide broadcast of this tape, large portions of the Muslim world and French "intellectuals" viewed it as something "made up" by the CIA and still adhered to the view that the CIA and/or the Mossad, rather than bin Laden, had masterminded 9-11 to give the U.S. an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan-- For example, see the February 26, 2002, installment at PoliSat.Com (here)].

(06)  Our massive invasion of Afghanistan would lead most war-lords to distrust us and oppose us (just as they opposed the Russians) rather than joining forces with us.  We would become "bogged down" in dangerous mountainous warfare with the same war-lord armies that inflicted massive casualties on the Russians.  We would not "capture" bin Laden.

(07)  Continuing worldwide propaganda by fanatical Muslims would continue inflaming the Muslim world against the U.S. for trying to "conquer" a Muslim country as retaliation for the 9-11 attack, which Muslims and French "intellectuals" would still claim to have been perpetrated by the CIA and/or the Mossad and/or "heroic" Saudis as "revenge" for Saudi Arabia being "desecrated" by the presence of U.S. bases and residual military forces following the Persian Gulf War.  Additional world-wide propaganda would persuade Muslims that the real purpose of the massive military invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S. would be to control a trans-Afghanistan "oil pipeline."  

(08)  Pressure on Musharraf to cease "collaborating" with the U.S. "invasion" of a Muslim country would continue intensifying.

(09)  Saddam Hussein, seeing our flanks and rear dangerously exposed would recognize the tactical and strategic advantages for him to covertly collaborate with our enemies while intensifying demands that the U.N. terminate the sanctions against him.  

(10)  With so many forces committed to Afghanistan and world opinion against us intensifying, Kerry would display his promised spirit of cooperation with our "allies" (France, Germany, Russia, et al) by agreeing to their demands to end U.N. sanctions against Iraq and end the no-fly zones.  After all, under this set of assumptions, the world would have already "known" that Saddam Hussein no longer possessed stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and did not have an active nuclear-weapons program.

(11)  Immediately upon the termination of sanctions (sometime in early 2002), Saddam Hussein would have re-started his programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.  Iraq's Lybia would have been eager to share with Saddam Hussein the WMD programs that we now know Lybia then possessed.

(12)  Within a relatively short period of time, Saddam Hussein would have been able to produce chemical and biological agents to be covertly delivered to the enemy of his enemy (i.e., al Qaeda) to be used in Afghanistan against our troops and to be used in the United States.  Saddam's having long been able to use terror to suppress Islamic fanatics in Iraq would have prevented him from worrying that helping al Qaeda attack U.S. interests would ultimately jeopardize his internal power base.

C. Conclusion.

It seems readily apparent that the outcome "I-B(12)" would be far more dangerous than what we now face in Iraq and Afghanistan.  To think otherwise would be to engage in highly selective, and highly unrealistic retroactive application of what we now know in "hindsight."  One of the ways we avoided the mistakes of the Russians in Afghanistan was that our willingness to deployed limited forces to collaborate with the warlords (and thereby risk being betrayed by some of them as may have occurred in Tora Bora) was a major factor in convincing the warlords that we wanted Afghans, not us, to control Afghanistan and in enabling Musharraf to take the extreme political risks of cooperating with the U.S. in ousting the Taliban and crippling al Qaeda.  Thus, it's Bush's strategy that's rooted in the real world and Kerry's that would have been rooted in Fantasyland.  It would be living in Fantasyland to believe Saddam Hussein would not by now be actively collaborating with al Qaeda against the United States, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  Saddam Hussein's long successful history of using terror to suppress Islamic fanatics in Iraq would have given him the confidence that his collaboration with al Qaeda would not jeopardize his own power base.  

II.  Hindsight "Replay" of Kerry Scenario No. 2:

This thought experiment shows that if a President Kerry were to have handled Afghanistan in a way to avoid needing to rely upon indigenous war lords to "capture" bin Laden, it's highly unlikely he would have been able to deploy to the Persian Gulf a force large enough to:  (a) convince our U.N. "allies" that he would invade Iraq unless they were to adopt a resolution demanding that Saddam Hussein readmit, and cooperate with, U.N. inspectors (b) intimidate Saddam Hussein into re-admitting the U.N. inspectors and "cooperating" with them.  Thus, under this scenario, Kerry would have been unable to take the steps necessary to enable us to learn what we now "know"-- i.e., that Saddam Hussein no longer had WMD stockpiles or active WMD programs.   Under this scenario, the corrupt non-enforcement of the sanctions, the continued diversions of funds from the "oil for food" program to Saddam Hussein, and increasing world-wide pressure to lift the sanctions to stop causing the deaths of thousands of "Iraqi babies" would have continued until Kerry would have placated our "allies" in the U.N. by relaxing the sanctions.  The likely result is that the situation we'd be facing today would be comparable to 1-B(12) under Scenario No. 1 above.

III.  Hindsight "Replay" of Kerry Scenario No. 3:  

This thought experiment rewinds history, re-writes it with "selective hindsight" by assuming that we would not have learned what we now "know" unless and until we were to have allowed inspections to continue until such time as Hans Blix would report that he had found Iraq to be free of WMD stockpiles and programs.  It also assumes (unlike Scenario No. 2) that a President Kerry would have handled Afghanistan in the same way as did Bush (rather than in the way Kerry now claims he would have handled it) so that a President Kerry would then have been able to amass 250,000-troops force on Saddam Hussein's border in order to:  (a) convince our "allies" that he would invade Iraq unless they were to adopt resolutions authorizing force if Saddam Hussein were to refuse to readmit, and then cooperate with, U.N. inspectors and (b) intimidate Saddam into readmitting the inspectors and "cooperating" with them.

A.  The "Inspections" Phase:

(01)  By mid-2002, Inspector Blix would have reported to the U.N. that Iraq was "free" of WMD stockpiles and programs.

(02)  Our "allies" would have treated such report as requiring:  (a) repeal of the sanctions, (b) withdrawal of our massive force from the Persian Gulf, and (c) cessation of the non-fly zones.

(03)  Even if Kerry were to have vetoed any resolution to end sanctions, our "allies" would have begun overtly (rather than merely covertly) ignoring them, in which case they would have become even less meaningful than previously, so it's really irrelevant whether he would have vetoed any such resolution or ultimately abstained to allow its passage.

(04)  Even if Kerry were to have vetoed any resolution calling for cessation of the no-fly zone, and even if he were to have continued the no-fly zones over vigorous international criticism as being "unfair" to Hussein whom the inspections would have "proven" to have complied with the WMD resolutions, his doing so would have continued further inflaming the Muslim world against us and inspiring sympathizers to join al Qaeda all over the world to resist what they would characterize as our "illegal" military operations over the air space of a sovereign Arab/Muslim country.

(05)  Nevertheless, most Arabs in the Middle East (including most Arab governments) would believe that Saddam Hussein had merely successfully hidden his WMD's rather than seriously believing a pronouncement by Blix that Hussein no longer possessed them, so his power to intimidate his neighbors would have thus been increased by the de-facto (if not de jure) dissolution of sanctions.

(06)  Our "allies" in the U.N. and the entire Muslim world would demand that we immediately withdraw from the Persian Gulf the military forces we had positioned there to coerce Saddam into "complying" with U.N. resolutions.  There is no way Kerry would have resisted such pressure, so he would have withdrawn all but token forces comparable to those that were in the Persian Gulf region on Sept. 10, 2001 (whose presence, by the way, was part of the motivation for 9-11).

(07)  We would have the illusion of having Saddam "in a box," but the de-facto (if not de jure) dissolution of the sanctions would have freed Saddam to resume his production of chemical and biological weapons and re-start his nuclear-weapons program.

(08)  Libya's Kaddafi would not have surrendered his WMD programs to the U.S. and Britain-- instead, he would have offered assistance to Saddam Hussein and/or al Qaeda.

(09)  By now, Saddam Hussein would have easily re-created his chemical/biological stockpiles as well as re-starting his nuclear-weapons program.

(10)  By now, Saddam Hussein would be perceived among Arabs and non-Arab Muslims as the undisputed leader of the Middle East.

(11)  By now, Saddam Hussein, sociopathic megalomaniac that he is, would have perceived it to be in his interest to covertly collaborate with the enemy of his enemy-- i.e., with al Qaeda against the United States.  His having successfully used unspeakable terror to suppress the Kurds and Shiites for decades would have caused him to believe that his helping al Qaeda attack the U.S. would not pose a serious threat to his power base in Iraq, so he would have done it.  Remember, he had no compunction against ordering an attempted assassination of former President Bush.

(12)  By now, a President Kerry would have no way to effectively or reliably determine whatever might be precisely the last moment in time at which we could preemptively strike Iraq to prevent catastrophic collaboration with al Qaeda.

B.  Conclusion:

It seems readily apparent that the outcome "III-B(12)" would be far more dangerous than what we now face in Iraq and Afghanistan.  To think otherwise would be to engage in highly selective, and highly unrealistic retroactive application of what we now know in "hindsight."

Overall Conclusion:

To "rewind, rewrite" and then "replay" history in accordance with what Kerry now claims he would have done if he were to have been president amply demonstrates that our situation would be far more dangerous than it is today.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com



Oct. 6, 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.

Commentary:  Cheney-Edwards debate-- John Edwards thanks wife for reminding him of pre-debate meetings with Dick Cheney and then calls Cheney's memory lapse a "failure to be straight."

            Post-debate spin is in high gear after last night's Cheney-Edwards debate.  As was the case with the first Bush-Kerry debate, the effects are not likely to become discernible until much later.

Thanks for the Memories.

            Shortly after the debate, John Edwards publicly credited his wife with reminding him after the debate that he'd met Dick Cheney several times before the debate.  (I witnessed this myself.)  As part of the predicate for criticizing Edwards for his long periods of absence from the Senate, Cheney said that despite his regularly presiding over the Senate every Tuesday, he had never "met" Edwards until the debate and then added that Edwards had exhibited such a long pattern of being absent from the Senate that his hometown newspaper began calling him "Senator Gone."  During the debate, Edwards did not dispute Cheney's assertion either because he sensibly interpreted it as having been impliedly limited to the context of business in the Senate or, if he interpreted it more broadly, because he had simply forgotten that he and Cheney had met several times in the past.  

            After Edwards' wife "reminded" him after the debate that he had "met" Cheney several times before the debate, he then characterized Cheney's assertion as an example of "not being straight with the American people."   If one were assume the reason Edwards failed to dispute Cheney's assertion during the debate was that he had sensibly interpreted it as an assertion that Cheney had not met Edwards in the Senate, then Edwards' post-debate comments were disingenuous.  However, even if one were to assume the reason Edwards failed to dispute Cheney's assertion during the debate was that he had forgotten that he'd met Cheney several times before the debate, then his post-debate comments were nevertheless disingenuous for characterizing Cheney's assertion as an example of "not being straight with the American people" rather than a memory lapse like the one just experienced by Edwards.

Conventional Wisdom versus Conventional Wishdom.

            Regarding the substance and tone of the debate, the consensus among most political experts is that debates between vice-presidential candidates do not significantly affect the votes for president.  However, the debate last night is destined to become the exception that proves the rule.  Why?  Because a question posed by Cheney sharply focused attention on a vulnerability of both Kerry and Edwards rivaling, if not equaling, the vulnerability inherent in their self-contradictory claims that they could "bring more allies to the table" as a means for reducing our "disproportionate" share of the casualties despite their having characterized Operation Iraqi Freedom as "the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place," as a "colossal mistake," and as a "grand diversion."  

Political Expediency to Counter the "Dean Machine"-- i.e., the "Dean of Mean" and "Doctor of Spleen."

            What's the basis for this assertion?  The most profound, most relevant, and most likely to endure "sound-bite" was a question posed by Dick Cheney, the gist of which was:  

            Since John Kerry said-- before voting against the $87 billion supplemental authorization to support the troops in Iraq and provide funds to rebuild infrastructure-- that it would be "irresponsible" for a Senator to vote against it, and since at the time of the vote two weeks later, Howard Dean seemed clearly on the verge of achieving a potentially insurmountable lead in the primary race for the Democratic nomination by running on an overtly and unequivocally anti-war platform, Kerry (and Edwards) found it politically expedient to vote against the authorization, the American people should ask themselves this question:  Since Kerry and Edwards were unable or unwilling to stand-up against political pressure from Howard Dean, how could they be expected to stand up against al Qaeda in waging the war against terror regardless of political pressures that will arise from anti-war sentiments, the "international community," and/or tactical setbacks in our struggle against Islamic fanaticism?  

This was the first show-stopper but not the last one.

Political Callousness-- Kerry/Edwards "body count" formula.

            The second show-stopper was in the form of a profound, yet heretofore unexpressed, observation about the political callousness of Kerry's and Edwards' repeated assertions that "we" are sustaining "90%" of the casualties as though the much larger number of Iraqi soldiers, policemen and officials killed or murdered by the enemy "don't count."  This observation by Cheney exposed a political callousness as offensive as their callousness in providing propaganda to the enemy killing our soldiers by mocking Prime Minister Alawi as a "puppet" of the United States almost immediately after Alwai had received a standing ovation in Congress for a moving speech in which he expressed profound appreciation for the sacrifices our troops have made, and are making, in Iraq.  Ostensibly, Kerry and Edwards would count the bodies of French "fighters" in Iraq (if there were to be any) but not the bodies of Iraqis fighting for their own freedom in determining whether American losses would be "disproportionate" to whatever may be Kerry's "global test" for what's right or wrong.  Isn't it better to have ten divisions of Iraqis fighting on our side than ten divisions of the French?

Starkly Differing Visions; Tactics versus Strategy.

            Rarely has an election presented the electorate with two such starkly differing visions for the future:  Tactics versus strategy; the tic-tac-toe tactics that Kerry and Edwards seem to favor versus or the chessboard "strategery" Bush has been implementing.  Has Bush and/or his subordinates made mistakes in the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom?  Of course.  Did Eisenhower/Churchill/Roosevelt and/or their subordinates make mistakes in the course of planning and implementing Operation Overlord?  Of course.  Did Truman and/or his subordinates make mistakes in handling the post-war occupation of Germany and Japan in preparing them for democracy?  Of course he did .  Did any such tactical mistakes negate the moral justification for their visions and strategies designed to increase the scope of liberty against the darkness of tyranny?  Of course not.

   The issue is not how best to "respond" to terrorism, it's how to eradicate Islamic fanaticism that seeks a return to the Dark Ages.  That's why "strategery" chess beats the tic-tac-toe mess that the Kerry/Edwards "internationalist" tactics would yield.  The tactic of "responding" rather than preempting exemplifies the pre-9-11 mentality that we all shared-- including yours truly, who always thought Bush 41 was right in refusing to "go all the way to Baghdad" notwithstanding post-Persian-Gulf-War criticisms of his failure to do so, most of which criticisms emanated from those who had opposed the Persian Gulf War.  How short are most people's memories regarding these things.

No Sex, Please-- We're Americans.

            Edwards also seized the opportunity of this debate to exhibit faux admiration for Dick Cheney's support for Bush's position on "marriage" while also supporting his lesbian daughter.  Rather than engaging Edwards' faux "compliments," Cheney declined to say more than he said in his initial response to the question asking him to explain how he reconciles his support of his daughter with his support of Bush, who favors a constitutional amendment to make it black-letter law (rather than merely judicial precedent) that the Full Faith and Credit Clause not be used to force one state to recognize marital policies of another state that my violate its public policy regarding marriage. 

             There may be, and probably are, compelling reasons for which government ought to recognize "civil unions" in which people help society at large by making long-term commitments to each other.  There are equally compelling reasons for according presumptions favoring heterosexual marriage over civil unions in particular contexts-- such as adoption, for example.



--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.












Oct. 5, 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.

Cheney-Edwards debate-- Dick Cheney ready to sauté John Kerry's "Cheekins" coming home to roost from Poland's President Kwasniewski castigating Kerry for disrespecting Poland in Bush-Kerry debate.

            The smug, cheeky nature of many of John Kerry's intellectually self-contradicting, disingenuous "policy" statements about Iraq are beginning to boomerang against Kerry from foreign sources rather than merely domestic opponents of Kerry.  To properly define the boomerang effects of such cheeky statements requires this writer to coin a new word for use in an old saying to aptly describe this phenomenon:  Such statements have become John Kerry's "cheekins" coming home to roost-- i.e., this writer hereby coins "cheekins" to be cheeky pronouncements made with short-sighted, self-serving tactical purposes but which produce strategically counter-productive effects not expected by the pronouncer.  

        An example of one of Kerry's "cheekins coming home to roost" is described in the Drudge Report for October 5,2005:

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski has slammed Dem president hopeful John Kerry for not recognizing Poland's contributions and sacrifice to the war in Iraq.

"It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience does not recognize Polish contribution. This is immoral," Kwasniewski told FACTS in an interview commenting on the US Presidential Debate.

"It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience underestimates Polish sacrifice, this is sad."

The Polish President added however that one should consider this was a part of the ongoing electoral campaign.

"I do not think this was out of ignorance," the president emphasized on the TVN Facts.

"There is one thing which should be stated clearly: this coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain, Australia alone; it also involves participation of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who have died. It is immoral not to recognize the involvement we contributed based on our conviction that there should be unity in fighting terrorism, that there was a need to display international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous individual of this world."

"President Bush acted like a real Texan gentleman, he made sure to show appreciation for other countries' involvement in the coalition," Kwasniewski pointed out.

Source:  [http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/05/20041005_151002_dnc58.htm]

            The statement by Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski underscores the fatuous, self-contradictory nature of Kerry's repeated assertions that he will "bring more allies to the table."  Instead, Cheney and Bush will bring more allies "to the table" with their special recipe sautéing Kerry's Cheekins that have come home to roost.  Kerry's defeat on November 2, 2004, will strengthen the resolve of our most steadfast allies rather than weakening their resolve as would be the effect of Kerry being elected.

            By surreptitiously intercepting electronic communications within the Bush campaign detailing how Cheney will use this information tonight in the Cheney-Edwards debate and how the Bush campaign will use in in forthcoming campaign commercials, PoliSat.Com intercepted an electronic copy of the video and transcript of the next commercial.  

Sautéing Kerry's Cheekins Coming Home to Roost.

We're Cheney and Dubya to boost
the strength of our allies with foods
sautéed and then curried
when, thanks to John Kerry,
his cheekinsº¹ come home for to roost.

Before we begin to partake,
to Poland, a "thank-you" we state
for promptly returning
these cheekins that Kerry
sent Poland belittling its weight.

            In the interest of fairness, PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief showed this commercial to high Kerry campaign officials.  Despite being unsure what they were high on, he wanted to give them a chance to comment about the commercial.  A top Kerry advisor, speaking on condition of anonymity, admitted that "Experts on political nutrition had warned Kerry of the nutritional paradox that the cheekins diet would cause him to lose, rather than gain, gravitas even though simultaneous consumption of such cheekins would increase the gravitas of his opponents." 


º¹·"Cheekins" is a word I coined to define smug, cheeky, self-contradictory statements by Kerry belittling contributions by our allies in Iraq while simultaneously claiming he could "bring more allies to the table" to help us.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.



Oct. 4, 2004-- No update today.


Oct. 3, 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.

Polls after first Bush-Kerry Debate show preferences for John Kerry as Debate-Team Captain and George W. Bush as Commander-in-Chief with vision through National Security Threat Scope.

            Predictably, all the dominant media concluded that John Kerry "won" the first Bush-Kerry debate.  Surprisingly, a significant number of pro-Bush pundits seem to agree.  Both groups are wrong, but for different reasons.  "Winning" the debate means gaining or losing support among likely voters for Commander-in-Chief rather than for Captain of the Debate Team.  Quick polls among "registered" voters (in contrast to polls including the more time-consuming and more realistic process of identifying "likely" voters) tend to overemphasize the opinions of the least informed, least motivated voters.  

            The quick polls of "registered" voters are showing not that support has shifted from Bush to Kerry for the job of Commander-in-Chief but rather that watching the debate made more people think Kerry would be best as Debate Team Captain.  Unfortunately for Kerry and fortunately for the country (and for Bush), we'll be voting on November 2 to decide which of them should be Commander-in-Chief.

            Another reason the dominant media (and even some pro-Bush pundits) have drawn the wrong conclusions about the short-term polling after the debate is that they fail to understand what it is about Bush that makes him persuasive to likely voters (i.e., the most informed, most-highly-motivated among the "registered" voters):  common sense, sincerity, conviction and his lack of glibness, slickness and "sophistication."   People wrongly think it was Al Gore's "sighing" that "turned off" voters-- instead, it was his lack of sincerity and conviction and his effusion of glibness, slickness and "sophistication."  Bush's obvious impatience with Kerry did not turn off serious voters, most of whom were feeling far more disgust with Kerry's contradictions than displayed by Bush.

            I believe most voters who best understand the issues felt angry as did I when Kerry criticized Bush for our forces' inability to protect more than the "oil ministry" in the immediate wake of the unexpectedly sudden collapse of Iraqi resistance in Baghdad.  Why?  Because Kerry because expressed such criticism in such a way as to lend support to false propaganda by our enemies that the "real" reason we "invaded" Iraq was "for its oil."  Whoever aspires to be our President ought to be unwilling to seek political advantage by stooping to the tactic of tacitly supporting  our enemies' false propaganda.  In 1971, he had no compunction against defaming our military personnel in Vietnam to serve what he perceived to be his own political advantage-- just ask Paul Galanti, et al.  His statement during the debate shows he still has no such compunction. 

            Kerry has thus created his own intellectual "quagmire"-- a form of intellectual "nuance" that is tantamount to a mental skill for which I coined the term "NuanSense" a.k.a. NonSense.  For more about "NuanSense," see my October 1, 2004, installment of Political Satire/Commentary (here).  For more about the Kerry Quagmire, see the September 18, 2004, installment of Political Satire/Commentary (here and/or here).  See also the September 28, 2004, installment (here) describing the "Simultaneous Flip-Flop." 

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.



Oct. 2, 2004-- No update today.



Oct. 1, 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.

Bush's Common Sense trumps Kerry's NuanSense (a.k.a. "nuance-sense") in First Presidential Debate.

            John Kerry's performance in the first presidential debate last night requires me to coin a new word to define the contrast between his performance and that of George Bush.  Those "experts" who think last night's debate was a "draw" or that Bush gave a substandard performance suffer from the same problem from which Kerry's performance suffered:  Not enough common sense to overcome "nuansense" (a.k.a. "nuance-sense").  Bush's common sense trumped Kerry's nuansense.  Examples abound:

            Jim Lehrer reminded Kerry of his 1971 anti-Vietnam-war testimony before the Senate when he posed the question, "How does one ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?"  Then, after reminding Kerry of his recent statements characterizing Bush's decision to liberate Iraq as a "colossal mistake," Lehrer asked Kerry to explain how his plan for waging the war in Iraq in a "better" way than Bush would be different from "asking a man to be the last one to die for a mistake."  Without even turning red in the face, Kerry denied the obvious logic of the question.  He's now doing the same thing vis-a-vis Operation Iraqi Freedom that he did vis-a-vis our country when he joined the Jane Fonda crowd upon his return from Vietnam.  From the beginning, I credited Kerry with his heroism, but that's not enough to qualify for President a person who so completely exemplifies the "intellectually nuanced" inability to make political decisions out of a fear that they might seem less than perfect in hindsight.  If heroism alone were enough, Kerry would have broken ranks with his party in 1996 to support Bob Dole against Bill Clinton.  So much for the "heroic" aspect of his claimed qualifications to be Commander in Chief.  Many soldiers who perform heroically on the battlefield would make terrible generals.

            In one of Kerry's statements purporting to list the "mistakes" he says Bush made in how he waged the war, Kerry gave credence to one of the most spurious, propagandist arguments made against us by the terrorists, the Baathist dead-enders, and Michael Moore:  He said that immediately following the fall of Baghdad, "the only building" our troops protected was the "oil ministry."   Thus, just as he gave a propagandistic victory to the North Vietnamese in 1971 by claiming the commission of barbaric atrocities by American soldiers was both commonplace and reflective of American military policy "from the top down" -- a vicious defamation which, as stated by Commander Paul Galanti, our troops being held captive in the Hanoi Hilton "endured torture" to refuse to falsely admit, this pretender to the role of Commander in Chief gave a worldwide propaganda victory to Usama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the diehard Baathists, Michael Moore, the French, Iran, and North Korea by his statement conferring respectability on the defamation that Bush invaded Iraq to seize its oil, when in fact, American soldiers were risking their lives to protect the oil pipelines, the refineries, and the harbor facilities as well as the "oil ministry" because protecting that industry was the best means to protect Iraq's ability to recover.

            Kerry never even came close to offering even a modicum of a common-sense answer to the question repeatedly and quite properly raised by Bush:  How can Kerry claim he will "bring to the table" those "allies" offended by Bush's decision to liberate Iraq to "share the burden" so we would no longer suffer "90% of the casualties" when he characterizes Bush's decision to liberate Iraq as a "colossal mistake"?  Likewise, he never even came close to offering even a modicum of a common-sense answer to a related question:  How can he expect to inspire confidence among our troops, our real allies who are actually helping in Iraq, and the Iraqi people when his strategy would place greater emphasis on having us withdraw as soon as possible rather than on unequivocally making victory the sine qua non for withdrawal?

            Kerry continued making the absurd assertion that "if we had let sanctions continue," in which case the inspectors certainly would not have found what we have yet been unable to find-- i.e., large stockpiles of WMD's, we would then have received "support" of the United Nations to "remove" Saddam Hussein.  What has he been smoking?  Continuation of inspections until Inspector Blixeau were to have pronounced Iraq to be "free" of WMD's would have rekindled the previously growing demands of our "allies" (i.e., France) for sanctions to end.  One would have to be living in a fantasy world to believe the United Nations would then have demanded that Saddam Hussein be "removed"-- Hell, Blixeau's pronouncement of the absence of WMD's would have made Saddam Hussein an even larger "hero" in the Arab world than did his mere survival of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 

            Even if we were to have used our veto power to prevent repeal of sanctions and even if we were to have continued maintaining the "no-fly zones" (with Saddam Hussein's forces daily trying to kill our pilots), our "allies" would cease obeying the sanctions-- they would become meaningless.  If we were to also continue maintaining our 250,000 troops in the Gulf to "keep pressure on Saddam Hussein" despite what would be the firestorm of criticism from our allies, their mere continued presence would "inflame" Islamic fanatics just as much as the relatively small pre-9-11 forces whose presence in the Gulf was one of the major reasons cited by Usama bin Laden for the 9-11 attack.   

            These are just a few examples.  My only criticism of Bush's performance is that he should have explained something that only a tiny percentage of Americans know:  While the Kerry Campaign is claiming the ability to "bring more allies" to our side, its campaign abroad for absentee votes in Australia (being run by Kerry's sister, Diana) is lending vocal support to the candidate seeking to unseat Prime Minister John Howard in the October 9, 2004, election, and that candidate, Mark Latham, is running on a campaign promise to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq if he were to defeat Howard.  What makes that strategy even more despicable is that the race in Australia is a tight one-- See my "Simultaneous Flip-Flop" commentary on September 28, 2004.   



Daily Update immediately preceding the one above, go here.


Other sites that feature PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here to view our Affiliates page.