TBogg was wondering why Ann Coulter in her column about the VP debates was so obsessed with John Edwards’ "girly hands". She referred to the supposed feminity of John Edwards’ hands several times.
Was Ann Coulter secretly envious of Edwards’ "girlish" hands?
Like TBogg, I’m betting so.
Last August, there was a little exchange with the President that went like this:
Q Mr. President, a year ago in Evian, there was an expectation that in the ensuing months, weapons such as chemical or biological weapons, would be found in Iraq. I wonder if you can share with the American people your conclusions, based on what you’ve learned over the past 15 months, sir, as to whether those weapons were — existed and they were hidden, were they destroyed, were they somehow spirited out of the country, or perhaps they weren’t there before the war, and whether you had a chance to share this with your G8 partners.
THE PRESIDENT: Right, no — Bob, it’s a good question. I don’t know — I haven’t reached a final conclusion yet because the inspectors — inspection teams aren’t back yet. I do know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons. I do know he’s a dangerous person. I know he used weapons against his own people and against the neighborhood. But we’ll wait until Charlie gets back with the final report, and then I’ll be glad to report.
"Charlie" refers to "Charles Duelfer" and as we all know, the Duelfer Report came back Wednesday saying no WMDs.
Seeing as how President Bush said he would be "glad" to report to us on it, and seeing as how there is a big debate tomorrow, maybe he can say a few words about it then??? What do you say, Mr. Prez??
Heh.
. . . or good advice, depending on whether or not your want Bush to lose. Check this op-ed out.
UPDATE: Jesse at Pandagon got the same idea as I did a couple of hours later. Read it.
Here are some of Morris’ tips to Bush:
When Kerry says that homeland security is inadequate and that only 5 percent of the shipping containers are inspected or points out that thousands of pages of wire intercepts have not been translated . . .
. . . Bush should say: "It is very easy to pick on one aspect of our security approach and say it is flawed. But remember one basic fact: If I told you on Sept, 12, 2001 that there would be no further attacks on U.S. soil for the next three years, you’d have thought I was out of my mind. But there have been no attacks. If we’re inspecting 5 percent of containers, it’s the right 5 percent. Judge us on our record: We have kept America safe."
Kerry should respond: "It’s not one aspect, Mr. President. We can also talk about our borders themselves, which allow people to come in. We can also talk about our failure to secure nuclear and chemical facilities as targets. And many other things. And frankly, Mr. President, I don’t give you a pat on the back because you’ve only inspected 5% of containers coming into this country and there hasn’t been a terrorist attack here in 3 years. Because al Qaeda is known to be patient. Weapons and other terrorist materials snuck in last year might not be used until 3 years from now. Or hadn’t you considered that? Finally, I want to note that after the first WTC bombing, we were on notice that we were a target of terrorists. Clinton, working with our allies, managed for 7 years to keep the American homeland free from a terrorist attack. You ignored memos, and we got attacked. No pat on the back for you."
When Kerry says we shouldn’t have attacked Saddam because he wasn’t involved in the 9/11 conspiracy . . .
. . . Bush’s answer ought to be: "Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Hitler had nothing to do with it. But FDR realized we needed to fight all fascism, not just the fascist regime that attacked us. Yes, Hitler made it easy on FDR by declaring war on us. But if he hadn’t, does anyone doubt that Roosevelt would have gone to war with Germany anyway?"
Kerry should respond: "In the days following the attack on 9/11, President Bush — to his credit — stood up and told the American people that the war against terror would be different than all other wars previously fought. And he was right. But what does he do when his failed plan to attack terrorism is exposed? He makes false analogies to 20th century wars, where the enemy was nation states, rather than the borderless cells that we faced today. Besides, President Bush’s response rests in a fctional world of alternate history — he relies on what Roosevelt would have done if Hitler hadn’t declared war on us. Well, Mr. President, we need someone who recognizes reality — present reality — and not historical what-if’s — if we are going to win the fight against a 21st century enemy. It’s time to come into the 21st century. We’re not living in a pre-9/11 world anymore, and certain not six decades pre-9/11."
When Kerry calls the war in Iraq a mistake and a diversion from the War on Terror . . .
. . . Bush should hit him between the eyes: "Al Qeada operatives are congregating in Iraq. We can kill them there before they can spread mayhem around the world. If we can hunt down those who would attack us in the caves of Pakistan and of Afghanistan and the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad, how is that a diversion from the War on Terror? It’s not. It is fundamental to success in that war."
Kerry should respond: "The attacks in Spain and, some would say, in Chechnya, show you to be a liar, or simply mislead, Mr. President. Studies show that terrorism has INCREASED throughout the word in 2003 — and that’s excluding what is happening in Iraq. Furthermore, almost every anti-terrorism expert outside your administration agree that our actions in Iraq have fomented anti-U.S. sentiment throughout the Middle East and elsewhere throughout the world. As a result, we are creating to breeds and regimes of anti-U.S. terrorists. It does no good to kill one terrorist and create five. In fact, it is counterproductive to the War on Terror, and — like your fiscal policy — future generations will pay."
And when Kerry accuses Bush of neglecting our allies . . .
. . . The president must set the record straight: "We have the single most important ally in the fight against terror: Pakistan is helping us hunt down terrorists who have escaped from Afghanistan. As to France, Germany and Russia, the evidence of the Oil-for-Food scandal suggests that no amount of diplomacy would have induced them to abandon a regime that was paying them vast sums of money to stay loyal."
Kerry should respond: "Any president who thinks we can win a GLOBAL war on terrorism with the help of Pakistan is dangerously naive to a fault about the potential reach and location of our enemy. Furthermore, we should remember that our allies in Europe and NATO were co-partners in the Cold War and the World Wars that preceded. There’s strength in numbers, and we need them for this new type of war as well as Pakistan. And remember, it was the internaitional community of nations that prevented Saddam from acquiring WMD in the 1990’s, including the very countries that this administration shows such contempt for. Remember the headline from "Le Monde" on 9/12/01? It said ‘We Are All Americans Today’. I ask you — how bad a President do you have to be able to take that sentiment and cause it to degenerate to the extent it has? Here’s a hint, Mr. President: The success of your worth as a world leader can be determined by looking behind you at how much of the world is actually willing to be lead by you. I dare say that on 9/12/01, it was virtually every free country in the world. And you blew it, sir."
If Kerry says we let bin Ladin escape . . .
. . . Bush has to say: "It’s easy to second-guess a specific military decision, but I leave those questions to the generals who are trained to make them. We may not have bin Laden, but he is running from cave to cave to cave and hasn’t been able to strike at us. And we do have Saddam. And we did get Khadafy to flip and support us. And we have the terrorists on the run."
Kerry should respond: "I am appalled that the commander-in-chief would blame the decision to abandon bin Laden on this country’s generals. That, to me, is the height of cowardice and disrespect. EVeryone knows that such a major and massive relocation of military resources and efforts would and should be made only by you, Mr. President. Furthermore, a moment ago you were invoking Roosevelt’s decision to fight Hitler in the wake of Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt ultimately made that decision, not his generals. Mr. President, please, accept responsibility for your own decisions. Isn’t that the first thing they teach you in 12-step programs?"
When Kerry criticizes any aspect of the war effort, like the shortage of body armor . . .
. . . The president should really let him have it. "It was not me, but you who voted against adequate intelligence funding, to abolish the CIA, to cut defense budgets and, ultimately, against the $87 billion for our efforts in Iraq. Those were your votes, not mine."
Kerry should respond: "Bush is again being deceptive here. When he says that I voted against adequate intelligence funding, he is talking about my vote in 1995. It was a bit of a scandal at the time, but what happened was that the intelligency agencies — one in particular, really — had secretly hoarded $1.5 billion in funds earmarked for, among other things, a satellite that they never built or launched or intended to build or launch. The agency had kept this money hidden from the Pentagon and the White House others in the intelligence community. I sought to get it back, slowly, incrementally, over the next five years, and was joined by many on both sides of the aisle who were upset at the misappropriation."
"President Bush is flat out lying when he says I want to abolish the CIA. The only talk about that came from Republican senators about a month ago, in response to the 9/11 Commission report. But the President has so many detractors — even within his own party — that I can see why he might be confused."
"As for my vote against the $87 billion, that was not because, as Bush misleadingly suggests, because I didn’t want to support the troops. It was because I thought we should be able to support the troops AND be fiscally responsible while doing it. President Bush thinks a president should have carte blanche; I do not. In fact, the way he has handled Iraq only proves precisely WHY one man should not be invested with such power. The President thinks that the patriotic thing for me to have done would be to send young men and women into harm’s way without reservation. Me? I think we should always have reservations — about the wisdom of what we are doing, about the consequences of what we are doing, and about the costs of what we are doing. That’s what comes from war experience. It’s not just about winning, but WHAT we are winning, and HOW we are winning."
. . . and it isn’t very flattering.
Bush’s saving grace? He probably doesn’t understand most of it (there aren’t, as far as we know, any pictures).
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001.
It gets worse from there.
The letter is signed by literally 165 business school professors, including over 50 from Harvard (Bush’s alma mater).
No joke. Take a close look at the Michigan ballot.
See any problem with the presidential portion?
Update: Okay. They’re going to fix it, I read.
With so many lies and distortions being tossed out by the Bush-Cheney team, I’m sure it is confusing.
That’s why this is bound to happen now and then:
President Bush in Wilkes-Barre, PA, this morning:
"My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. Parts of it should sound familiar — it’s already known as the Bush plan"
President Bush in Wilkes-Barre, PA, this morning, a minute or so later:
"In Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat; I have a strategy for victory."
Um . . . . okay.
It probably wasn’t a good idea for Cheney to recommend that debate watchers go to factcheck.com. Cheney meant to say factcheck.org, a rather decent non-partisan site which — by the way — you SHOULD be checking out regularly. But factcheck.com, on the other hand, points the web user to George Soros’ site. Ooops.
It gets even worse though, because if you actually go to the site that Cheney was recommending — Factcheck.org — it starts out its VP debate coverage with "Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong." (emphasis mine) *Gulp*
Note to Cheney: In the future, make sure the websites that supposedly back you up actually back you up.
I was originally planning to say that the debate was a toss-up, based largely on the last 20 minutes that I caught, plus the after-debate commentary. I mean — Cheney distorted a lot, but Edwards never really called him on it — so that’s a tie in my book.
But then I saw this poll at WorldNetDaily and it convinced me that Edwards must have won by a decision, or a TKO, or by a KO. After all, 55% of WorldNetDaily readers can’t be wrong, right?
Heh.
And Ezra at Pandagon has this very astute observation:
The moderator, by the way, was awful. Not partisan, just bad. She seemed inexperienced, intrusive, and too interested in gotcha’s. Her question on the contradiction between Kerry’s personal position on gay marriage and what the MA Court decided ("is John Kerry trying to have it both ways?") is like accusing me of having it both ways because even though I support clean air, Los Angeles has a pollution problem.
Yup.
So says the United States government investigation.
An extensive U.S. investigation has found that Iraq destroyed virtually all its chemical and biological munitions in 1991, a dozen years before President Bush ordered U.S. troops to invade based largely on the alleged threat posed by those weapons.
The report will be presented Wednesday to a Senate committee by chief U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer. It says Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein believed in the deterrent power conferred by weapons of mass destruction but ordered them destroyed in an effort to end sanctions imposed on his country after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The key findings of the report were described Tuesday by a high-level administration official who has been briefed on its contents.
The story adds:
[B]y dating the destruction of Iraqi weapons to 1991, the Duelfer report raises new questions about how U.S. intelligence agencies and the Bush administration were so far off the mark in their assessment of the Iraqi threat.
"So far off the mark", 1050+ American dead (and rising) — that’s the Bush legacy.
Watch, however, how Bush & Co. will STILL try to tell the American people that Saddam posed a "gathering" threat.
LANSING, Mich. – Republicans say filmmaker Michael Moore should be prosecuted for offering underwear, potato chips and Ramen noodles to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
The Michigan Republican Party has asked four county prosecutors to file charges against Moore, charging that his get-out-the-vote stunt amounts to bribery.
Now, I haven’t researched this, but I am pretty confident that there is no law against offering "bribes" in order to get someone TO vote. It might be a different matter if Moore was offering bribes in exchange for a promise to vote for a particular person, but that’s not what is going on here, according to the article.
I mean, if what Moore is doing is illegal, then arguably every polling place which offers an "I voted" button to people who voted is violating this same supposed "bribery" law.
The point here is that Republicans know better, and this is simply a matter of trying to keep people from voting. Shame on them. Both parties should be encouraging GOTV efforts. What does that say about those Republicans who claim to want to spread democracy around the world ("Look how many people registered in Afghanistan"), but SUE people who are trying to spread democracy here?
As you may know, Michael Moore is coming out with a book of letters and emails that were sent to him from soldiers fighting in Iraq.
The Guardian has an exclusive excerpt for those of who give a rat’s ass.
Check out Bush’s cheat sheet:
. . . why did the U.S. Cybersecurity Chief just suddenly resign today from the Office of Homeland Security, because of "what he considers the department’s lack of attention paid to computer security issues"? (Source)
Can’t be good news for Bush on the day following the debates.
WASHINGTON – The White House said seven months ago that it had released all the records on President Bush (news – web sites)’s stateside military service during the Vietnam War, yet new records are still dribbling out as Election Day approaches.
The White House on Wednesday night produced a November 1974 document bearing Bush’s signature from Cambridge, Mass., where he was attending Harvard Business School, saying he had decided not to continue as a member of the military reserve.
The document, signed a year after Bush left the Texas Air National Guard, said he was leaving the military because of "inadequate time to fulfill possible future commitments." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the resignation was found in connection with a lawsuit brought by The Associated Press.
The White House said the document had been in Bush’s personnel file and that it had been found by the Pentagon.
How can the WH/Pentagon suddenly "find" a document in Bush’s personnel file? Didn’t they look before . . . like when they said that everything had been released??
I’m not sure what an "Eisenhower Republican" is — I believe Clinton used the term to describe anyone who refused to go spend more federal money during a time of deficits (i.e., "Dubya is not an Eisenhower Republican — although Clinton ironically was one.").
Anyway, this guy, being Eisenhower’s son and a Republican, is truly an Eisenhower Republican . . . and he’s voting for Kerry. Read why.
Best quote: "I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits."