The Search for Intelligent Life in a President

Guess what. Kerry ain't it.

Bush had higher SATs than John Kerry and a higher rating on his Officer aptitude exam. But you probably knew that. What you didn't know is that the Green Bay Packers play at Lambert Field and Manny Ortez did a helluva job for the Red Sox. That's a new record for Kerry: dissing both Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz in one comment

Let's face it: Kerry is not up to the work. Ask someone from Massachusetts and he will tell you that Kerry is a phony, and always has been.

The real thing

It’s downright laughable to see liberal Democrats trying to assume the mantle of two of the many things they despise about America: religion and the military. Are they fooling you?

John Kerry of late has been quoting Scripture in churches, no doubt because the Bible has played such an important part in his life. This would be something of a surprise, since neither a personal relationship with God nor familiarity with Scripture is the usual focus for Catholics. It’s revealing, therefore, that the Scripture he quotes is from the Protestant Bible, not that of the Catholic Church. Not only Protestant, but from the King James Version, written when the fields were still blood-soaked from the religious wars of the sixteenth century.

Revealing, but not surprising for a candidate whose web site proudly declared that his favorite verse was John 16:3. Now, as anyone who has watched a sporting event knows, even one at “Lambert” Field, that nut with the funny hair usually holds up a sign that cites John 3:16, known to many Christians as “the Bible in miniature.” I leave it to you to look up Kerry’s favorite verse and see how prescient his choice is.

As uncomfortable as they are with religion, the Liberals are even more out of place when the military is mentioned. It is clear that they have no interest in Kerry’s military record beyond the fact that he served in Vietnam, since it serves as an anodyne for the shameful way they treated the returning soldiers in that war. They also use it like wolfbane against the accusations of being soft on defense.

The truth is that they want what Kerry wants: to retreat from Iraq, cut joint and bone from the military budget and abandon the remains to the regency of the UN. In the meantime they will submit the autonomy of their own country to the guidance of that same entity and judge our actions in the World Court.

Kerry’s a phony on both faith and war, and his record attests to that point. In fact, his supporters are counting on it. You want the Real Thing? Vote for Bush.

Do you care if we are safer?

Are we safer now than we were before 9/11?

Of all the specious questions being asked by the Democrats, this is the one that is my candidate for the least pertinent.

Let me demonstrate: Were we safer on December 6, 1941 or December 8, 1941?

Without question we FELT safer on December 6th. We didn’t know that Japanese fighter-bombers were on their way to destroy the Pacific Fleet. We certainly weren’t safer as the first bombs were on their way to shatter our Sunday morning, wouldn’t you agree?

The real question is this: how do we insure our safety? And whom do we trust with that mission?

A simple choice

What is the choice between Kerry and Bush? It’s really very simple: Bush will fight in Iraq. Kerry will bail.

Please don’t try to argue this point and pretend you are being honest. There is simply nothing in Kerry’s political history that suggests anything else. He wanted to cut and run in Vietnam, he opposed our aggressive approach against the Soviet Union, he opposed advanced weapons, increased budgets for Intelligence, voted against action to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

Kerry keeps saying that Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you really think that he is the one to WIN that war? Any war? Of course not. He’s never once spoken of victory, not in 35 years. And victory is exactly what Kerry will not pursue. And if you’re voting for Kerry, it’s because you want the troops home as quickly as possible, not because you want victory. Be honest. Even if he is not.

Faith and the Black vote

It was a revealing moment. John Kerry explained the importance of his faith. Revealing, because it seemed to show how unimportant his faith is to him. This is a man who has not been on his knees since the erstwhile Mrs. Heinz said yes.

Soon after I had the odd experience of witnessing a conversation between Pat Buchanan and Larry O’Donnell, a newsman who fancies that we have heretofore been unaware of his liberal bias, in which they discussed the unsettling relationship that George W. Bush seems to have with God. Taken together with Ron Suskind’s article in Sunday’s NY Times (underscored last night by his appearance on Hardball, I am led to this conclusion: Liberals do not fear God; they fear men who fear God.

The genesis of this rather bizarre fear is ignorance, like that of many fears. These are people who simply know little about God or Faith. In the case of Messrs. Buchanan and O’Donnell, it is an ignorance they come by naturally enough, since they are both Irish Catholics. When they grew up, they were discouraged from forming any religious relationship other than one with the parish priest. Catholics have never been as interested in the Bible as they are in the Catechism, but at least they have come a long way from the 17th Century, when they had some Dutch skinned alive for reading the Word of God.

In Mr. Suskind’s case, the fear seems to stem from what can only be compared to a puerile ignorance of the subject. Imagine the naïveté encompassed in his understanding of prayer. Any person of faith, certainly any Christian who is in the habit of getting on his knees in prayer, understands the concept of seeking the will of God. If you believe in a Higher Being, doesn’t it make sense to try to understand what He wants? Mr. Suskind pictures this as demented, as though the petitioner must be a wild-eyed idiot who hears things.

I don’t fear a president who fears God; I fear one who does not. So do a lot more African-Americans than the Democrats are comfortable with, which is why many black churches are abandoning Kerry.

The case for multilateralism

What do you think Kerry means by multi-lateral? At this point in the election debate, you should be able to answer this, because if you can’t, you’re not going to get any help from the media.

About all you will get from the New York Times and the LA Times regarding multi-inter-national-lateral is that the term applies to John Kerry alone. The term that is used with George Bush is unilateral, alone, nobody but us.

Think about it. George Bush went to the UN, got a resolution passed unanimously in the Security Council to put the wood to Saddam if he didn’t fork over his WMD. When it came to putting the wood together France, Germany and Russia demurred. Thirty other nations joined in a coalition with the US in the lead (you were thinking Italy should be the leader?) and thirty days later Iraq fell, several years ahead of what the nattering class was predicting. After learning what we have about the UN’s Oil for Food program, namely, that the French, Germans and Russians were making huge profits, and Saddam thought of it as his Money for WMD program, it’s no mystery that the three allies were not anxious to confront Iraq.

Meanwhile, Bush is leading a majority of nations in the successful prosecution of the war against terrorism everywhere else, a majority that includes France, Germany and Russia, BTW. In addition, Bush is negotiating substantial concessions from the three in his drive to forgive Iraq’s debt.

Things are looking up for the globe, wouldn’t you say?

Hardhitting debate assessment

Both contestants were dressed conservatively, although John Kerry’s chalk stripe from Savile Row did much to complement his tall figure. George Bush selected an unfortunate light blue tie, rather than the more usual subdued red chosen by the other finalist. Each responded well to questioning in this most important test of the contest, responding with vigor and passion. We are not concerned with what was said; only how well each response was enunciated. Once again, Mr. Kerry won this portion of the contest with his sonorous, orotund delivery. Mr. Bush tended to be clipped and strident, continuing to drop his final “g’s” to everyone’s dismay.

Next up: the swimsuit competition.

Here's your hat, what's your hurry?

Tom Friedman tells us he’s back. The New York Times columnist would have us believe that his sabbatical while writing a book has given him new perspective on Iraq. Here’s the shocker – he thinks the Bush administration has screwed things up.

Shocking? Hardly, since the only time Tom has given any slack to the Bush administration is after it won its stunning, three-week victory against Saddam Hussein, making Friedman’s protestations of the disastrous quagmire to do so inoperative.

He states in his column, “This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage…” Why do I think he means HIS advice? If you look at the laundry list of things Tom has suggested, you see that the advice Bush has failed to heed has all the marks of Friedman’s political point of view, his remonstrance to the contrary notwithstanding. The choices Tom Friedman has provided over the months since our remarkable victory underscore his liberal viewpoint.

Does that mean that things are going swimmingly in post-war Iraq? Of course not, any more than they did in China, when the Japanese surrender left 190,000 armed Japanese troops in a land they considered under their boot, or in Germany, where the “Werewolves” tried to wreak Nazi havoc on our troops. But history and logic are never high on his liberal radar. Emotion reigns supreme there.

The choices Bush has made are manifestly not political, but in the long-term interest of this country, and of Iraq, for that matter. The war began on 9/11 when the US was attacked. When it is won, sometime between the span of the Second World War and the Cold War, we will have a clearer view of leadership of this president, and the views of Mr. Friedman will sound as wrong-headed as those columnists who heralded the choices made by Neville Chamberlain.

Tom, take another break. You could use it.

The medium sure ain't the message

Let’s take a look at that message Kerry used in his debate, shall we? Don’t try to read a transcript, because your eyes will cross. Kerry was clear about only one thing: his contempt for President Bush. Everything else was all across the board, but the Democrats don’t care. They would accept Kerry’s decision to reintroduce slavery, as long as it won the White House. They have no more intention of allowing Kerry to win the war than they have reinstituting the draft or slavery, for that matter. They will say anything to win.

One of his chief gaffes was the absurd contradiction that Mr. Multilateral would sweep aside the multilateral talks with North Korea going on now, in favor of the US alone negotiating with Mr. Kim. ‘Splain that to me, will you? That’s right up there with the Global Test Mr. Kerry is currently studying for.

Another canard that the Press has yet to discover is the notion that there is a draft lurking in the minds of the Republicans. The dots that the dear reporters seem incapable of connecting are: it is Kerry, not Bush, who keeps saying we need more troops, in contradiction to the theater commanders; no president can reinstitute the draft by fiat; the all-volunteer service has yielded the most effective fighting force in the history of mankind; only Democrats are flogging this horse.

My favorite is the idea that other countries, like France, are magically going to help us in Iraq. Look, France wouldn’t even fight for themselves; I wouldn’t count on them doing our fighting. French leaders allowed their populace to be subjected to jackbooted Nazis after a month in 1940. Freedom isn’t a big deal for them. They prefer to make money by skirting International sanctions, like Oil for “Food.”

Rather Redux

Let’s take a break from all the heavy breathing over John Kerry’s performance at the first debate (I notice no one is talking about the substance of his remarks, but that’s another blog).

Dan Rather is back in the news, this time with his two “competitors” from the older networks. Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw have come to the defense of their colleague, citing such nostrums as, "I don't think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career," (Jennings), and condemning “a kind of political jihad ... that is quite outrageous," (Brokaw).

Funny, I don’t remember Peter voicing that sentiment about Martha Stewart, and she’s doing time. This is not one event in Rather’s career, any more that Monica Lewinsky was one event in Clinton’s career. What those two have in common is that for each it was the one event that defied prevarication and stonewalling, because both turned out to be incontestably true. Several examples of Dan Rather’s use of questionable authenticity have been raised in the past, but have always been met by the press’s version of stonewalling, “we stand by our story.” What about Spiro Agnew? He only got caught once.

With regard to Brokaw's comment, hoisting Rather by his own petard is just desserts, not political jihad. Somehow I don’t think Tom would have accepted such shoddy reporting and questionable evidence if it had been in defense of President Bush. Let’s remember that Tom Brokaw is the kind of discerning intellectual who has said he maintains course by steering between his friends who think he is too liberal, and those who think the opposite.

Tom, maybe you need a wider set of friends.

Unpacking the debate

It's a draw. That’s what the big media outlets think. Both the Washington Times and the Washington Post agree on it. Even the New York Times admitted a draw, before it began its inevitable spin on Kerry’s appearing “presidential.”

I don’t agree. I think it was a “Nixon-Kennedy” event. If you heard it on the radio, Bush won; if you watched it, Kerry won. Kerry looked good, Bush looked tired.

But if you were to read a transcript, Kerry made some statements that make him not-ready-for-prime-time. The champion of international alliances would engage North Korea unilaterally. The person harping on U.S. casualties would put more American troops in harm’s way. Mr. One-thing-at-a-time (first bin Laden, then the next target) would prevail in this war much faster than Bush. Look, France and Germany have been helping us right along in the war against terror, but they are not about to pitch in to something described as a “grand diversion.” How ‘bout the “global test?” What’s up with that?

The Republican campaign is running like such a well-oiled machine, that I am tempted to suspect that they planned it this way. Can you say, “first Reagan-Mondale debate?” Developing…

Thank goodness Kerry’s benighted campaign staff decided to drop the Vietnam hero stuff. CBS producer Don Hewitt made the quote of the week, "You can't play war hero if it's about a war where you threw your medals away. “