Posted on 09/09/2004 6:36:18 AM PDT by Area Freeper
Republicans marched out of their convention intoxicated with the sensation of victory. President Bush, the "war president", was the most honest, moral, decisive, and strongest leader in the world. (The unvarying encomiums eerily echoed those of the brainwashed soldiers about the sleeper agent in The Manchurian Candidate: "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.") After Bush's defiant speech - "Nothing will hold us back!" - his lead was reported by Time magazine to have climbed to 11 points, which was inhaled like pure oxygen by the Republican cadres. (Both John Kerry's and Bush's internal polls gave Bush only a four-point lead.)
Kerry seemed to be reeling in retreat. His disciplined campaign management had suppressed criticism of Bush, supposedly on the basis that swing voters are attracted by vague swirls of optimism. But the effect was that voters remained confused about the contrast between the candidates and Kerry's commitments. Kerry had delayed defending himself against the torpedoes of falsehood fired at his heroic military record by the Orwellianly named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Perhaps his gravest self-inflicted wound was replying to Bush's challenge to answer whether he would still have voted for the war resolution on Iraq, knowing what he does today. Kerry said he would and tangled himself in a thicket of sticky nuance.
Bush could hardly believe that Kerry had fallen for the gambit. This sucker would buy a bridge in Brooklyn. The triumphant Republicans felt unrestrained in delivering blows to the prone Kerry. Dick Cheney announced that a vote against Bush was tantamount to a vote for a terrorist attack: "If we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again."
On the day that former President Clinton had his heart surgery, Cheney attacked him as weak on terrorism, and for good measure set upon Ronald Reagan too. The venerated Reagan had served his purpose as an icon at the convention, but now he was unceremoniously thrown overboard.
Only Bush was tough enough. Bush, adopting the tone of the fraternity house president he once was, sarcastically derided Kerry: "No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power."
In fact, on the third day of the Republican convention, Kerry had given a penetrating and highly specific speech on the war on terrorism and Iraq, detailing how Bush's strategy amounted to a series of catastrophic blunders. "When it comes to Iraq," he said, "it's not that I would have done one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently."
Kerry's speech was pointedly ignored by Bush who, with Cheney, rained a steady fire of ridicule down on Kerry. Meanwhile, the report on Iraq by the Royal Institute of International Affairs was buried in the back pages. "Iraq could splinter into civil war and destabilise the whole region if the interim government, US forces and United Nations fail to hold the ring among factions struggling for power." Civil war, the institute said, was "the most likely outcome". Kerry remarked that because of Bush's errors "terrorists have secured havens in Iraq that were not there before". The New York Times reported that Fallujah and many other cities in the Sunni triangle are under the control of Islamist insurgents. But Bush steadfastly refused to engage Kerry in debate. A report chronicling the undermining of the war against terrorism by James Fallows in The Atlantic, in which numerous military officials described how Afghanistan became a "sideshow" as resources were siphoned to Iraq, received almost no attention. "Our strategy is succeeding," Bush told his jubilant rallies.
Bush campaigns before the faithful; distressing facts are dismissed with sarcasm and ideology is implacable. Yet at this moment of disdain a discovery that cast light on Bush's character suddenly emerged, having the potential to alter the momentum of the campaign.
On Wednesday, the Boston Globe published documents proving that Bush, whose spotty record in the National Guard was always mysterious, "fell well short of meeting his military obligation". Maj Gen Paul A Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, was quoted: "It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable."
That night, CBS's 60 Minutes broadcast the first interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who explained how he contrived to get young George his safe posting in the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war. The programme also revealed further documents showing he never fulfilled his service.
Abruptly, the Republican marchers stumble as Kerry is galvanised. "His miscalculation was going to war without planning carefully and without the allies we should have had," he said yesterday. Meanwhile in the White House, aides anxiously wonder how to explain the president's haunted past and his long years of hiding it and who will have the task of facing the cameras.
I think we have discovered who helped Hillary pen the bedroom scene with Bubba. Gasp.
Abruptly, the Republican marchers stumble as Kerry is galvanised. "His miscalculation was going to war without planning carefully and without the allies we should have had," he said yesterday. Meanwhile in the White House, aides anxiously wonder how to explain the president's haunted past and his long years of hiding it and who will have the task of facing the cameras.
What a pathetic rant. After the big lead-in, I was expecting something more than Bush was late or absent a few times from Gaurd drills. I wonder what page this appeared on in the Gaurdian?
On the other hand, I don't believe his lie that the GOP internals showed the same. They likely showed the seven point (or so) lead that Gallup and now CBS have confirmed.
So, some good news for the Pres. even in this vile article from Sid.
Hey Sid read this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/09/opinion/polls/main642108.shtml
LOL!
Pray for W and Our Troops
The words 'vile' and 'Sid Blumenthal' just go together so well, don't they?
Hmmm....
Kerry said he would and tangled himself in a thicket of sticky nuance.
Kerry, you see, has nuance.
Bush and Company are ham-handed and lack 'nuance'.
Now we know where the leftmedia got this term.
Sid describes perfectly Kerry's 'Band of Brothers.'
kerry has really lost his way,hasn't he? he is worse than mondale or mcgovern. this has to be the worst candidate to hit the national scene since i've been alive. did you hear his crap about the war costing too much? what a strong argument that was. i'm sure france and germany are just biting at the bit to help us defend and pay for iraq. wasn't the cost argument originally a nancy " tough as toilet paper" pelosi idea that was laughed off the evening news ? when your "logic" places you along side nancy pelosi, then you have a serious , serious problem.
We must weigh the facts:
1. Bush didnt want to get a physical-Kerry aided the enemies of the United States
2. Bush recieved an honorable discharge but was not sent to vietnam-Kerry was sent to vietnam and then supported the communist military and political delegations.
3. Bush was not an overachiever in his military career-Kerry put himself in for many decorations
4. Bush is responsible for his actions because he was an officer and and a 25 year old adult-Kerry was not really responsible for his actions because of his youthful exuberance at age 27 and he was only a reserve officer.
5. Bush a well meaning american that made some mistakes as a young man-Kerry well meaning young communist sympathizer that says he doesnt make mistakes
Is that for real?
The ONLY thing that sticks in my mind about Ben Barnes, is the Sharpstown Scandals.
See how this article reveals the real Barnes.
bump
Atleast Sid is consistent from his Clinton days: he still shows no shame in defending scumbag frauds.
The Democrats are acting like the fact that their relatively minor charges, as compared to sKerry meeting with North Viet leaders while still in the reserves, are being made by the MSM gives them greater credibility than the veterans they trash as liars. In reality, anyone who pays attention knows the facts are that the MSM is the Pravda of the Progressive Caste Party.
The problem is that most people won't even remember Ben Barnes name, let alone Sharpstown. They'll only remember that 60 Minutes had some guy on saying he knows the President shirked his duty.
Democrats have not cared about truth, (except on the part of their enemies), for years. All they care about is the perception they can create.
I just saw a pair of talking head "strategists" on FNC, and the smirking Democrat won that battle because he said the AP refuted the SwiftVets as liars and this big legitimate news organization is the one bringing these latest charges against the President, not some bunch of "proven liars". He clearly implied the "liars" are not independent but part of the Bush campaign. Neither point was refuted at all, and the Republican looked sheepish saying only "We need to concentrate on the issues the American people want to hear about."
Byline: Sidney Blumenthal, hmmmm... this should be objective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.