|
·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, ·
|
|
Archives-- Installments for
October 11 through 31, 2004, starting below in reverse chronological order.
Oct.
31, 2004 #00a:
Special
Commentary: Dominant Media complicity in Hoaxes (Part
III): Missing-Explosives Hoax and Sugarcoated-Records Hoax-- Analysis &
Commentary by Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)-- Click
here to go to PoliSat.Com's special page for this commentary.
In this Part III of this special
commentary, Col. John
H. Wambough, Jr., a fighter pilot, focuses on journalistic complicity in hoaxes regarding
allegations of missing explosives and allegations of sugarcoating of Bush's Air National Guard
records. Permanent
link to this commentary.
Oct. 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.
New
Osama bin Laden video tape parrots Michael Moore's propaganda and vice-versa; World waits to see
whether John Kerry will repudiate, or continue parroting, Moore's propaganda.
The new video tape by Osama bin Laden (aka Usama bin Laden) parrots the anti-Bush propaganda of the
Democratic Left's favorite spokesman, Michael Moore, who enjoyed an "honored" seat beside
Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention. His video tape also puts to rest in the
minds of everyone not on the far left any doubt that the prime motive for his "jihad"
against the United States is our audacity in daring to exercise influence in the Middle East
opposing those seeking the destruction of Israel, a democratic country standing in stark relief to
the medieval totalitarianism sought by bin Laden. It also reinforces the central thesis of
Operation Iraqi Freedom-- i.e., that the Middle East, not Afghanistan, is the center of
gravity for al Qaeda's barbaric war against modernity and human rights.
Is the tape, alone or in conjunction with the video-tape by the American-born convert to Islamic
totalitarianism released earlier this week predicting an attack to "dwarf" 9-11, a
harbinger of an attack on us between now and election day? Ostensibly, bin Laden lacks
confidence in his ability to predict a successful attack and, therefore, he has employed the tactic
of having a surrogate (the American-born jihadist) predict an attack so that the passage of election
day without a successful attack would afford bin Laden "deniability" with respect to that
prediction and prevent such failure from being perceived as his failure. Thus, the
"good news" is that he must lack confidence in the prospects for a "successful"
attack on us, but the bad news is that a plan for attack must be in progress to enable
him to retroactively take credit if it were to succeed.
Whether it's "fair" to John Kerry or not, no one can seriously deny that the perception
among Islamic fanatics (and among Muslims unwilling to overtly condemn and oppose such fanaticism)
is that Kerry's policy in Iraq would be less aggressively committed to establishment of a government
respecting human rights in Iraq than would Bush's policy. Therefore, whether it's
"fair" to Kerry or not, the Islamic fanatics would construe the defeat of Bush as a
victory for their cause. Critics of Bush argue with what they perceive to be great
sophistication that Operation Iraqi Freedom has served as such a great "recruiting" tool
for al Qaeda that they really want Bush to win. They didn't need such "recruitment"
incentives for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, for the bombing of the American Embassies
in Africa, for the bombing of the Cole, or for 9-11.
Common sense suggests that whatever "recruitment" benefits they may have accrued have been
more than offset by the enormous resources that Operation Iraqi Freedom has required them to apply
in their ultimately doomed effort to prevent Iraq from becoming a human-rights-respecting
country. Every terrorist our troops (and the new Iraqi Army and Police) kill in Iraq is one
terrorist no longer available to participate in terrorist acts elsewhere. "Strategery"
chess will ultimately prove to be far more effective in the long run (i.e., for our children and
grandchildren) than the tic-tac-toe tactics we followed when we all lived in the pre-9-11 fool's
paradise in which almost all of us naively perceived "law enforcement" tactics as the
proper weapon against such terrorism.
While we all hope that whatever plans al Qaeda may now have in progress will fail, we must also be
prepared to refuse to allow any successful attack-- no matter how large or devastating-- to diminish
our aggressiveness in maintaining a strategic offensive against Islamic totalitarianism on a global
basis.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Oct. 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.
No
Update today.
Editor off today.
Oct. 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.
The
New York Times and CBS 60 Minutes "investigative" journalists sniff-out explosive material
in QaQaa from the Johns; John Kerry ignites explosive charges not controlled by George Bush.
In the waning days of Campaign 2004, the investigative "journalists" in the New York Times and CBS 60 Minutes divisions of the John Kerry Campaign sniffed-out
explosive charges beyond the control of George Bush. Parroting the bogus "news"
report falsely asserting that hundreds of tons of "high explosives" had
"disappeared" from the Al QaQaa munitions bunkers in Iraq after, rather than before,
American troops defeated Saddam Hussein's troops defending it, John Kerry recklessly and
irresponsibly made unfounded allegations impugning our efforts against Hussein's barbaric followers
just as in 1971 when he recklessly and irresponsibly made false allegations that our troops in
Vietnam committed atrocities on a widespread basis as a matter of military policy "throughout
the chain of command," and just as in the second Presidential Debate when he spouted propaganda
being propagated by the terrorists by claiming "the only building" our forces
"protected" after the "fall of Baghdad" was the "oil
ministry."
Kerry has repeatedly proven he will recklessly and irresponsibly say anything to get
elected. See "Old Kerry
Wine in New Kerry Bottle." See also "Old
Stolen Honor in New Stolen Bottle." (For viewing the animated
illustration of this latest, most-explosive example of such behavior by Kerry, use this animated-version
link.
Those examples don't stand alone. During the time preceding the October 8, 2004, election in
Australia, John Kerry's campaign in Australia for absentee voting by Americans abroad was supporting
Australian Prime Minister John Howard's opponent, Mark Latham, who campaigned on a pledge to
"withdraw" Australian troops from Iraq "by Christmas," while John Kerry was
continuing to spout his disingenuous claim that if he were elected he would "bring more allies
to the table." See the September
28, 2004, installment at PoliSat.Com. (However, fortunately for us and for our
troops, Howard decisively defeated the Mark-Latham/John-Kerry Alliance in Australia against John
Howard's staunch support of America in Iraq-- See the October
10, 2004, installment at PoliSat.Com.)
Kerry has been alternating between a Goldilocks
strategy on the one hand and revised
Goldilocks strategy on the other. Now, in the waning days of the campaign with the overt
assistance of the New York Times and the now-overtly exposed covert plans of CBS 60 Minutes, Kerry
seeks to ignite his campaign for an explosive, come-from-behind victory, but instead, what he has
ignited is the highly-explosive, self-destructive methane from two Johns.
In light of Kerry's stubborn insistence in continuing to parrot an obviously bogus "news"
report, PoliSat.Com's commentary on October 26, 2004, bears repeating here:
I'm
Kerry, a singer of songs
alleging how Dubya was wrong
on what Saddam hid
and failed to keep lids
on weapons concealed by Saddam.
ElBaradei
authored a song,
the gray New York Times went along,
and I then agreed
to serve as the lead
to lip-synch the words of the song.
I'm
using my lips and my throat
to lip-synch a bogus "news" hoax
the gray New York Times
and U.N. designed
to claim Bush lost stuff that explodes.
But
unlike the dumb Ashley Simpson,
who quit when her lip-synch pretention
so clearly revealed
her song wasn't real,
I'll stick to my lip-synched pretentions.
You
ask why I haven't revised
the song that the facts have belied?
I'm tired of those awful
complaints that I waffle,
so therefore, I'll stick to the lies.
What
we're witnessing is the most overt of all recent attempts by the Dominant Media to function as an
adjunct division of the Kerry-Edwards Campaign while simultaneously attempting to trash the freedom
of speech of ardent critics of Kerry who served their country in Vietnam just as honorably, if not
demonstrably more so, than Kerry and never stooped to the behavior of Kerry in 1971 and afterward in
recklessly and irresponsibly defaming our troops in Vietnam.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Oct. 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.
No
Update today-- PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief in Roswell, New Mexico interviewing
extraterrestrial sources for John Kerry's "missing explosives" claims.
No update today. PoliSat.Com's Editor in Roswell, New Mexico to interview surviving
extraterrestrials who were the anonymous sources for John Kerry's decision to rely upon the New York
Times and the staff at CBS 60 Minutes to allege tons of "explosives" were
"looted" from Al Qaqaa after, rather than before, our troops got there.
Oct. 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.
John
Kerry lip-synchs New York Times/U.N. "news" report falsely claiming "tons" of
explosives "disappeared" from Al Qaqaa in Iraq after, not before, U.S. troops arrived in
April, 2003.
Emulating Ashlee
Simpson,
John Kerry performed a monkey-see/monkey-do lip synch of the New
York Times' and U.N.'s collaboratively bogus "news" report falsely claiming that
"tons" of "high explosives" had "disappeared" from the Al Qaqaa
munitions dump in Iraq long after, rather than long before, U.S. troops arrived at the site in
April, 2003, the day after Baghdad suddenly fell. Dan Rather must be turning green with envy
that the New York Times created an anti-Bush ad reciting bogus allegations disguised as
"news" that may tie, if not overtake, Rather's first-place position in the race for
anti-Bush partisanship masquerading as "news."
Now that the bogus-news "music" has changed, will John Kerry continue
lip-synching? Or, will Kerry blame the New York Times for "playing the wrong bogus
story." PoliSat.Com's high-tech, remote-sensing equipment has intercepted a Music Video
Campaign Ad being readied by the Kerry Campaign to respond to attempt to put the best fact on this
debacle. Here's the animated-version
link. and below is the transcript of this soon-to-be-released ad:
I'm Kerry, a singer of songs alleging how Dubya was wrong on what Saddam hid and failed to keep lids
on weapons concealed by Saddam. ElBaradei authored a song, the gray New York Times went along,
and I then agreed to serve as the lead to lip-synch the words of the song.
I'm using my lips and my throat to lip-synch a bogus "news"
hoax the gray New York Times and U.N. designed to claim Bush lost stuff that explodes. But
unlike the dumb Ashley Simpson, who quit when her lip-synch pretention so clearly revealed her song
wasn't real, I'll stick to my lip-synched pretentions.
You ask why I haven't revised the song that the facts have belied? I'm
tired of those awful complaints that I waffle, so therefore, I'll stick to the lies.
Kerry
Lip-Synchs New York Times/U.N. Bogus "News" Report:
I'm
Kerry, a singer of songs
alleging how Dubya was wrong
on what Saddam hid
and failed to keep lids
on weapons concealed by Saddam.
ElBaradei
authored a song,
the gray New York Times went along,
and I then agreed
to serve as the lead
to lip-synch the words of the song.
I'm
using my lips and my throat
to lip-synch a bogus "news" hoax
the gray New York Times
and U.N. designed
to claim Bush lost stuff that explodes.
But
unlike the dumb Ashley Simpson,
who quit when her lip-synch pretention
so clearly revealed
her song wasn't real,
I'll stick to my lip-synched pretentions.
You
ask why I haven't revised
the song that the facts have belied?
I'm tired of those awful
complaints that I waffle,
so therefore, I'll stick to the lies.
In
addition to intercepting this soon-to-be-released Kerry Campaign Music Video, PoliSat.Com's
high-tech, remote-sensing equipment has also intercepted a soon-to-be-released Music Video to be
released by CBS 60 Minutes featuring Dan Rather conceding to the New York Times his first-place
position in publishing partisan views in the form of bogus "news" stories. Here's
the transcript:
Is
Dan Rather Envious?
I'm
Dan Rather envious now
to learn the Gray Lady has now
concocted as news
some partisan views,
so humbly to her I must bow.
Entertainment
"reporters" predict that John Kerry's lip-synching of the bogus New York Times/U.N.
"news" story is likely to capture first place in the next annual MTV Public Service Awards
Ceremony for musical "news" educating the MTV Generation.
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com
Oct. 25, 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.
No
update for Monday, October 25, 2004.
Editor
away today-- family responsibilities.
Oct. 24, 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 morphs from "John Forbes Kerry" into "John Bubba Kerry" proving he craves
popularity more than respect by trying to glom onto Bill Clinton's alleged popularity.
John Kerry has engaged Bill Clinton to campaign for him starting in Philadelphia. This is
great news for George Bush. It's difficult to imagine a better way to reinforce Bush's theme
that John Kerry's tactics for dealing with Islamic Totalitarianistsº¹
would take us back to the pre-9-11 false sense of security of the feel-good 1990's. Kerry
apparently believes Clinton's presumed popularity is the equivalent of respect, which it is
not. Far more Americans like, than respect, Bill Clinton.
To say that our pre-911 tactical approach to terrorism led directly to 9-11 is not to
"blame" Bill Clinton for 9-11. Only the 9-11 terrorists and those who supported and sympathized
with them deserve "blame" for 9-11. But John Kerry ability to use
"hindsight" to perceive "mistakes" by his political opponents (and, in so doing,
ascribe "blame" to them) utterly fails to enable him to understand that our pre-9-11
tic-tac-toe tactical approach was ultimately doomed to failures of ever-increasing intensity-- i.e.,
from the Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate former President Bush, to Hussein's aggressive
support of suicide bombers in Israel, to Somalia, to the Embassy bombings in Africa, to the U.S.S.
Cole, and then 9-11.
Just as the Gayº² 1890's
exemplified a period characterized by a widespread sense of well-being that flowed in part from
blissful obliviousness to the gathering dangers that manifested themselves in the form of World War
I, the Feel-Good 1990's exemplified a period characterized by a widespread sense of relief that the
"Cold War" was over and that except for the occasional "nuisance" of terrorism,
America was safer and sounder than ever before. To hear John Kerry and Bill Clinton, it was
the Golden Age. Instead, it was a new Gilded Age in a Gilded Cage of Exuberant Irrationality
expecting an uninterruptible, onward and upward thundering of a Bull Market. With respect to
our vulnerability to terrorism, It was a Fool's Paradise.
By welding himself to Clinton in the waning days of the 2004 Campaign, Kerry seals his fate as a
pre-9-11 thinker-- especially in light of Clinton's announced desires to "revitalize" the
role of the United Nations by succeeding Kofi Annan as Secretary General. This would complete
the circle for John Kerry's "Global Test" for America's war against Islamic
Totalitarianists.
Before 9-11, our responses to terrorism constituted tic-tac-toe tactics undisciplined by strategic
thinking. After 9-11, George Bush changed our policy from tic-tac-toe tactics to "strategery"
chess. Kerry "supported" Bush's strategy in Afghanistan, but who among us seriously
thinks a President Kerry (or a President Gore) would have exhibited the bold vision to tackle the
overthrow of the Taliban and the pacification of Afghanistan (which a half-million Russian troops
had been unable to do over a ten-year period) by forging an alliance with a Pakistani leader poised
perilously on the edge of Islamic sympathy to al Qaeda and the Taliban?
Even now, Kerry's critique of Bush's handling of Afghanistan-- i.e., failing to send
"enough" American troops to avoid relying on alliances with "war lords" in
ousting the Taliban and chasing bin Laden (which, paradoxically would have caused the "war
lords" to view us like the Russians rather than like allies and would likely have impeded,
rather than promoting, our rapid success in Afghanistan)-- reveals the un-strategic, tic-tac-toe
tactical nature of his vision for dealing with terrorism. Kerry would have had us turn our
backs on a deadly rattlesnake gradually wiggling out of restraints while we would be crawling
through the grass searching for the al Qaeda scorpions. He still doesn't understand that
toppling Saddam Hussein was a strategic necessity.
Critics of Bush's use of the preemption rationale for toppling Saddam complain that such rationale
would "make more sense" against North Korea and Iran. It's like criticizing an
organized crime strike force for first concentrating its efforts against an organized-crime family
for which it already has warrants and able assistance from supporting organizations (i.e.,
allies) rather than leaving that family alone while becoming bogged down in efforts against other
organized-crime families for which there are no outstanding warrants and fewer, if any, able
allies willing to assist. How many "allies" would have supported preemptive actions
against North Korea and Iran? None, of course. Those critics' arguments are not
arguments for preemption against North Korea or Iran; rather, they are arguments against preemption
against Saddam Hussein. Those critics naively pretend that if we were to have deployed a much
larger force to Afghanistan that Saddam Hussein would have obligingly stayed "in his box"
and refrained from attacking our rear and our flanks covertly by collaborating with the enemy of his
enemy if not overtly by seizing upon our division of forces as an opportunity to attack our forces
and/or allies in the Middle East.
º¹·Islamic
Totalitarianism is to Islam what the Spanish Inquisition was to Catholicism; it's what the Ku Klux
Klan was to Christianity; it's what Stalinism and Maoism were (and French Intellectualism and
American Secular Fundamentalism are) to secular thinking. To learn why I coined the term
"secular fundamentalism" and what it means, go here,
here, here
and here.
º²·For
students educated in American History before the advent of NEA Political Correctness, the term
"Gay 1890's" had nothing to do with sexual preference (except perhaps preferences for sex)
in an era of a false sense of security about the gathering dangers that manifested themselves in the
form of World War I a few years later.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com
Oct
23, 2004 #00a:
Special
Commentary: Media Hoaxes re Bush's Air National Guard
Service (Part II: Coward/Draft-Dodger Hoax)-- Analysis & Commentary by Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)--
Click here
to go to PoliSat.Com's special page for this commentary.
In this Part II of this special
commentary, Col. John
H. Wambough, Jr., a fighter pilot, methodically and meticulously demonstrates how any
journalist seriously interested in an "investigative" analysis of such allegations against
Bush could have readily discerned the coward/draft-dodger claims against Bush to be spurious.
Oct. 22, 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.
Commentary--
John Kerry is "KerryyrreK" regarding Iraq, terrorism, George W. Bush 43, George H. W. Bush
41, the CIA, and our troops fighting to implement national policy.
As election day approaches, some voters apparently still don't know "the real John
Kerry." The "Goldilocks" Kerry assures us he would have the prescience to use
preemptive war only when the time is "just right" and never "too soon" or
"too late." Kerry seems more willing to risk being "too late" than
"too early." George Bush recognizes the impossibility of knowing when the time
would be "just right," so he says he would prefer attacking gathering dangers "too
soon" to avoid being "too late." The aggressive John Kerry appeared only
momentarily on CNN's Crossfire in 1997-- when he though Clinton might then be on the verge of
unilaterally initiating military action against Saddam Hussein, he said we couldn't allow Saddam to
continue defying U.N. sanctions and that If our allies wouldn't support action against him, we'd
have to "go it alone."
Kerry was quite caustic in accusing Bush of having failed to strengthen our intelligence activities
against terrorism during Bush's eight months in office before 9-11. The "same" Kerry
had been equally caustic a mere year after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in proposing
to slash $6 Billion from the CIA budget to curb it's "abuses." Where was his
prescience from 1994 until September 11, 2001?
Kerry is so insistent in speciously claiming that he would have supported toppling Saddam if George
W. Bush were to have done what his father had done: assembled an "international"
coalition (i.e., one that included the French) and obtained U.N. approval. Yet this is
the "same" Kerry who as a Senator voted against using U.N.-approved force to Saddam
Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
These are but a few of the examples of political opportunism which Kerry tries to portray as being
the product of "intellectual nuance." Notwithstanding Kerry's intellectual
pretenses, it's not "nuanced" sense; it's NuanSense-- i.e., nonsense.
Where's the consistency? It's the consistency of his being willing to defame American foreign
policy in 2004 as well as in 1971. In 1971 he defamed our foreign policy by alleging that
commission of atrocities in South Vietnam was military policy from the top to the bottom. In
the 2004 Presidential debates, he said that at the fall of Baghdad, "the only building we
protected was the oil ministry," and in doing so, fed the false propaganda being spread against
us by the Islamic Fascists (and French "intellectuals"). This was as inexcusable and
indefensible as Kerry's continued silence about Teddy Kennedy's irresponsible statements alleging
Bush launched the war to provide "profits" for his friends and equating the mistreatment
of prisoners at Abu Ghraib with the barbaric torture routinely dispensed by Saddam Hussein and his
henchmen.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Oct. 21, 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.
Red
Sox Ghost Busters bust Ruth's Ghost-- Will BoSox give BoTox a boost for BoTox to win 'stead of lose
or will voters tilt to Dubya to wilt the Ghost of Dukakis on Stilts (in Bush-Kerry Series)?
The Boston Red Sox made baseball history last night by "busting" the Ghost of Babe Ruth in
beating the New York Yankees for the American League pennant.
Their come-from-behind victory after a 0-3 deficit also made history. Here's the World
Series schedule according to Major League Baseball's website:
Boston Red Sox vs.
Nat'l League Champion (Pending
Astros-Cardinals game 7 tonight in Houston at 8:00 pm)
GAME
MATCHUP
DAY DATE TIME
TV
Game 1
NL Champion @ Boston Red Sox Saturday
Oct. 23 7:30 p.m. FOX
Game 2
NL Champion @ Boston Red Sox Sunday
Oct. 24 7:30 p.m. FOX
Game 3
Boston Red Sox @ NL Champion Tuesday
Oct. 26 8:00 p.m. FOX
Game 4
Boston Red Sox @ NL Champion Wednesday Oct. 27 8:00 p.m. FOX
Game 5* Boston Red Sox @ NL Champion
Thursday Oct. 28 8:00 p.m. FOX
Game 6* NL Champion @ Boston Red Sox
Saturday Oct. 30 7:30 p.m. FOX
Game 7* NL Champion @ Boston Red Sox
Sunday Oct. 31 7:30 p.m. FOX
Source:
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/schedule/ps_04.jsp.
Baseball pundits are ecstatic. Political pundits are
even more ecstatic. Kerry supporters will glom onto the BoSox come-from-behind victory as a
harbinger of a come-from-behind victory for BoTox against Dubya, but Dubya supporters will remind
them that the BoSox's come-from-behind victory in the playoffs is merely a metaphor for BoTox's
come-from-behind victory in the primaries.
Regardless of whether the Astros or the Cardinals win the National League tonight, political pundits
will be unable to resist using the World Series as a metaphor for the presidential-election contest
between George W. Bush and John Kerry because in either case, the World Series will pit "Bush
Country" (Texas
or Missouri)
against the land
of Dukakis on Stilts. Can George Will survive such a double-whammy punditry
challenge? Surely the Ghost of Ted Williams will be rooting for BoSox but not BoTox.
(Williams trained as a pilot with Bush 43's father in W.W.II.)
Will it be the BoSox against the Cardinals as a metaphor for Botox against "Busch
Country"? Will it be the BoSox against the Astros as a metaphor for BoTox against Bush
Country? Who has the edge-- the man with BoTox under his skin or the man with Rosin under
his skin? Will the BoSox as the Cinderella team change the BoTox man into the Cinderella
candidate? These questions are raising eyebrows (except Kerry's, of course.)
Dubya's critics think he left too many on base in the presidential-debate series, but I think he
scored more runs than were counted since the country will be voting for a Commander-in-Chief rather
than Debate-Team Captain. Notwithstanding polls predicting a tight race, I predict that Bush
will win by what will be the equivalent of a four-game sweep. Why? When a majority (52%
to 56%) are standing in the voting booth, they'll remember at a gut level not being sure where Kerry
"stands" on Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is the main front in the war against Islamic
Fascism thanks to Bush's wisdom in playing "strategery"
chess in contrast to the tic-tac-toe
tactics favored by Kerry. In asking whether Operation Iraqi Freedom is laying the
foundation for making us safer in the long run, they'll remember the question Bush posed yesterday
to those claiming it has "increased" terrorism. The gist of his question was
this: "Do you really think that if we hadn't toppled Saddam Hussein those terrorists
who've moved into Iraq to battle against our troops and the Iraqi people's progress towards a
human-rights-respecting democracy would now be spending their time as productive, civic-minded
citizens trying to make the world a better place?"
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.com.
Daily
Update immediately preceding the one above: go here or find it in the chronological Index
of Archives here.
Other sites that feature
PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here
to view our Affiliates page.
·
