Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Friday's debates

I'm sorry for the lack of blogging. I was out of town this past weekend and didn't feel like blogging yesterday. So now I have to play catch up.

I wasn't able to watch the debate on Friday as I was driving to Maryland for a Saturday event. But by all accounts the President was seen as the winner. I read the transcript and was impressed by some of the presidents answers. He sents some zingers back at Kerry that were truly amusing "I own a lumber company?".

The poll numbers are now showing a lead for Bush. It's not a huge lead but the fact that the polls actually show him leading is good news.

Also this past weekend Afganistan held it's first fair and democratic elections ever. And they came off without much trouble at all. A true triumph for Democracy and freedom. Oh yeah btw to all you leftist moonbats out there, democracy is the "plan to win the peace".

Australian elections were also this past weekend. I am happy to report that Prim Minister John Howard was reelected in a landslide victory. This despite John Kerry's sister campaigning against him. The Australians have been our closest allies in every war in the past century. Howard's opponent was an anti-war candidate:
Australia's involvement in Iraq was an important issue. The debate over the future of 850 Australian troops has been divisive, with Mr. Latham vowing to bring them home by the end of this year if he won.
This is a victory for the US and for the war on terror.

Speaking of the war, an interview with John Kerry came out in the NYT over the weekend. In it Kerry discusses his views on the war. In an incredible statement he demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of the threat:
''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
Excuse me? A nuisance? This is just incredible! Lileks puts this very succinctly:
A nuisance? I don’t want the definition of success of terrorism to be “it isn’t on the rise.” I want the definition of success to be “free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven’t gotten around to kicking in the ass yet.” I want the definition of success to mean a free Lebanon and free Iran and a Saudi Arabia that realizes there’s no point in funding the fundies. An Egypt that stops pouring out the Jew-hatred as a form of political novacaine to keep the citizens from turning their ire on their own government. I want the definition of success to mean that Europe takes a stand against the Islamicist radicals in their midst before the Wahabbi poison is the only acceptable strain on the continent. Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.
I agree with Dick Morris that this is the best glimpse we've had into how Kerry thinks about the War on Terror:
John Kerry has just explained, clearly and lucidly, the difference be tween the Democratic and Republi can approaches on how to fight terrorism: He told the New York Times Magazine that, as a "former law-enforcement person," he knew that we could not wipe out terrorism, but hoped we could repress it until it became a "nuisance," not a mortal threat.
Kerry's likely secretary of State, Richard Holbrooke, chimed in, saying the War on Terror can only metaphorically be a war, like other "wars" against poverty, drugs or crime.

What do you think about this statement?