As I was reading VDH's blurb about the debate, I had a thought. Kerry keeps repeating "I have a plan..."; I think he should switch over and go with "I have a dream...". Think about it: it's catchy, it's chock-full of symbolism, and it much better fits his ridiculous theories and vague projections about how the world would work under his presidency.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Paris the sons of former neo-cons and the sons of former Iranian nuclear bomb makers will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood filled with allies from all different nations, and by all different nations I mean France and Germany. I have a dream that one day even the United States, a police state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice, not unlike North Vietnam was when I met with the Vietcong in 1971. I have a dream that my two children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the orangey color of their skin but by the content of their briefcases, which is where they keep their lucky hats. I have a dream today.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:38 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh. Pixy thinks a good indicator of who is going to win the election is the betting odds!

Posted by: Sarah at 03:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

In the comments section below, Manny wrote the following defense of voting for Kerry:

With Bush it seems that we will get just more of the same. If you like that then I imagine you will vote for him. But with Kerry we may get something better. There are no guarantees but Kerry is certainly not the ogre of the negative campaign.

However, since the first debate, bloggers have been pointing out how Kerry's plans have already failed. Wretchard wrote about how The Global Test already didn't work for us, and CavX addressed the "allies at the table", Iran, and North Korea. I'm not sure I agree that we "may get something better", since Kerry's suggestions seem to be falling apart even before we get to 2 November.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Hud found a link to a round-up of property damage and threats by Kerry supporters. These are scary times, folks.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:38 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

I find I'm irrationally afraid of my absentee ballot not making it to Missouri. I can't stop thinking about it. I worry that it's stuck somewhere inside the mailbox and won't get found until it's too late. The bad thing is that there's no way of knowing.

I don't think I ever told the story of how I was almost "disenfranchised" in 2000. I went to the voting place and went into the little booth, and I jacked up my ballot Florida-style. Punched it wrong. But unlike Florida I wasn't so dumb that I didn't realize it, so I stood there and tried to figure out what to do. Both the ballot and the sign on the inside of the booth said that if you make a voting error, you should destroy the ballot and return it to the polling people for a new one. So I emerged from the curtain ripping my jacked-up ballot and asked for a new one. And the volunteers started shouting. They used menacing words like "violation" and "irregularity" and reprimanded me for defiling the voting center. They asked me what on earth would possess me to rip up my ballot, and I calmly replied, "The sign you have printed on the inside of the booth." And then they refused to believe that the sign would say such a thing. I tried to get one of them to come in the booth with me to see it, but they weren't budging. They almost refused to give me another ballot, but finally they relented. I voted properly and then left, but I mentioned that they might want to change their signs since there obviously was a huge discrepancy in procedure. It was a mess.

Plus I voted for the wrong guy! I mean, I punched it right, but BOY would he have been the wrong guy!

Posted by: Sarah at 03:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Excellent post on why to vote Bush at Cold Fury (via Bunker). Taste:

Well, here’s why: because the choice isn’t between Bush and George Patton; it isn’t even between Bush and Barry Goldwater. The choice is between a man who, in the end, has made the right moves, if sometimes diffidently, and a man who has shown over a long career in the Senate that he is not just indifferent but actually hostile to the use of American military power in pursuit of American interests. The choice is between a man who, in the immediate aftermath of the most hideously successful terrorist attack in history, had the bedrock good sense and unabashed patriotism to be unable to conceal his anger, and a man who would have needed three polls and a focus group to tell him how he ought to feel about it in order not to discomfit and alienate his America-hating Lefty base. The choice is between a man who genuinely seems to like soldiers, respect their service, believe in their competence, and honor their intelligence and basic decency, and a man who underhandedly wriggled out of his own commitment and came home to slander them as butchers and latter-day “Jenjis” Khans.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:47 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

This article, Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry, jives with my husband's assessment of his own platoon.

By the way, the husband sent his ballot the other day. As long as the mail moves along in a timely fashion, the two of us will be squared away for 2 November.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

CavX, one of the smartest fellas out there, weighs in on the debate. I did get to see it in a rerun here, and I agree with CavX's assessment. And I think Bush won. I just re-read the transcript. I don't care if the MSM networks are saying Kerry won, because in reality his answers were muddled and his thinking illogical.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:59 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I think Bush definitely won in the areas that count, being real and having substance. The MSM is trying to giveKerry a boost, but some polls are showing Bush gained points. We'll know more on Monday, but Kerry is such a fool, he is bound to lose big.

Posted by: James Hudnall at October 03, 2004 03:37 AM (FV8Tp)

2 Thanks for the compliment, Sarah. You know what? I've been thinking about it, and it may be that Bush deliberately threw away style points in a debate on a subject Kerry can't possibly beat him on. Expectations for Bush are now lowered for Friday's "town hall" style all-subjects debate (which will be the tough one), while expectations for Kerry are raised. Plus, I've seen clips of Kerry's speeches since then, and he's getting even more cocky and arrogant than before (which I didn't think possible). I've said before that Bush plays chess while his opponents play checkers; we'll see Friday whether that's true.

Posted by: CavalierX at October 03, 2004 08:28 AM (sA6XT)

3 A woman called a talk-radio program here after the debate and said she watched the debate with her kids (8 & 10, I think). Neither child was tuned in to the content, of course, but their observations were interesting. One said Kerry looked like a Bobble-head doll and the other said he seemed like a phony. Some of us who actually judge real debates (high school forensics) are routinely faced with intros like Kerry made (sympathy for blah, blah, thanks to blah, blah, etc.) and with us that style (slightly) negatively impacts the scoring. But this was not a real debate, and there was no true scoring. My perception is - if one had been carefully following the campaign, Bush won (McCurry to Lockhart 'it was a draw'), but if the debate was all one knew about the issues, Kerry won - he was smoother, and his inconsistencies and previously-disproved statements of fact went unnoticed (and unchallenged).

Posted by: Glenmore at October 03, 2004 10:28 AM (HtP2k)

4 This is a soldier's response to the debate. http://jb-williams.com/soldier-debate1.htm

Posted by: Moor at October 03, 2004 02:12 PM (g8OfD)

5 I have seen many mentions of the President's hesitations, pauses, and troubled looks. What I have not seen is any mention that many/most/all of them came after some particularly fairy-dust pronouncement by the Junior Senator. Every time, I could almost hear the President thinking "How can I respond to someone who claims to believe such rot?" I am half expecting an announcement by the Junior Senator that he has received the official support of the Flat Earth Society.

Posted by: homebru at October 03, 2004 04:41 PM (hEnFa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I received two absentee ballots from the state of Missouri. One is a federal write-in ballot, which I received two months ago, and one has the actual bubbles you fill in, which I received this week. I don't understand why I got both of them. I wonder what would happen if I were a bad person and filled out both of them. Would Missouri catch the mistake? Would my vote count twice? Are there more people out there who received two ballots, people who don't have the "voting integrity" I have? Just wondering...

Posted by: Sarah at 05:32 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd like to wish Tony Blair a speedy recovery for his surgery. Hurry back, friend! We need you in this fight!

Posted by: Sarah at 02:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

I read this long interview with John Kerry (thanks to this comments section), and I don't think I understand him any better. He naturally goes through a long list of reasons why the W stands for wrong, instead of answering the direct, completely un-vague question that was posed.

IMUS: What is this plan you have?

KERRY: Well, the plan gets more complicated every single day because the president...

IMUS: Try to simplify it for me so I can understand it.

...

KERRY: Well, Don, I realize that, but the fact is that the president is the president. I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan?

He rambles for a bit, and then the interviewer throws him a ba-zing:

IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.

Indeed. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas in Cambodia. But what are you going to do about it, Kerry? Stop saying what we should be asking the President and start explaining why we should vote for you. What would you do differently, and don't give me this bullcrap about bringing allies to the table. No single country has agreed to do anything differently, even if you're President. You criticize the President for "not having a plan to win the peace"; explain why you think the world will be more peaceful if you yank all the troops out. Explain it, please. Cuz last year you said

Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.

More stuff from the interview:

IMUS: Did you read "Unfit for Command?"

KERRY: No.

IMUS: Did anybody on your staff?

KERRY: I have no idea.

IMUS: Why wouldn't you want to know what's in it? It's the No. 1 "New York Times," of course, it says nonfiction bestseller.

KERRY: Because they have right wing people to buy them in bulk, and that's what they're doing.

Can't possibly be individuals who want to search for the truth themselves rather than buying what CBS is peddling? It's gotta be Karl Rove buying books by the crate and turning them into fertilizer for Bush's secret cocaine stash. Please. You can't be president if you believe in a book-buying conspiracy. (By the way, none of these conspiracy nutjobs are mature enough to be president either.)

Here's a zinger of a question:

IMUS: Back in May of 2001 on "Meet the Press," you said you yourself have committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions. And my question, Senator Kerry, is, is there a difference between what happened in your case in Vietnam and what happened at Abu Ghraib, in that both were acts in violation of the Geneva Conventions?

KERRY: There is a difference.

IMUS: What is it?

KERRY: There is a difference. What I was referring to in that testimony was the general categorization of free-fire zones in Vietnam and the general categorizations of some of the weapons that were being used, which were in violation of the accords. We didn't learn that until we came home. I didn't know any of that while I was there. I didn't know any of that over there, nor did most soldiers.

That sounds mighty different from what he said before about Jengis Khan. That wasn't just weapons types, that was

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Why can't we get a straight story out of this man?

IMUS: Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq -- any?

KERRY: Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see.

But he just got done saying something that sounds different...

KERRY: Let me explain it to you. I felt in 1998, and I said that Clinton ought to have the power, the authority to use force, in order to force Saddam Hussein to have inspectors, to be able to disarm. The only way to get the inspectors in was to be tough, to have the threat of force and the authority to use force. I was prepared to use the force if he didn't do what he needed to do. But I warned the president, as did many people, take the time to build up the international coalition, don't rush to war, because the most difficult part is not winning the military part of the war; it's winning the peace. [emphasis added]

Kerry would've gone to war if "he didn't do what he needed to do." Who is "he"? Saddam, I guess. What did he "need to do"? "Have inspectors" and "be able to disarm". That's an extremely vague sentence, and it would be nice to know what exactly the last straw would've been for Kerry. What exactly would've made him decide it was time to go to war? What exactly would've made it too imminent for him?

What exactly is his platform?

Posted by: Sarah at 04:29 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 958 words, total size 6 kb.

I just heard part of John Kerry's speech to the National Guard, just the live snippet that the news played. In it he criticized the President, saying that 95% of the cost of the Gulf War was paid by our allies. That was shocking to me, so I looked it up. The two figures I found amounted to only 88%, so I'm not sure how he got 95%. But still, 88% is a big number. A closer look revealed that more than half of the cost was shouldered by Kuwait (makes sense) and Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure I want Saudi Arabia considered one of our "allies", as Kerry's speech classified them. Japan paid a big chunk of change in 1991, much appreciated, and Korea paid a bit. Germany forked over a bit more than $5 million. Appreciated too, but I'm not sure what point Kerry is trying to make today. He criticizes the President for not getting our "allies" to help pay in 2004 like they did in 1991, but France isn't even on the list. And isn't that really who we always mean when we talk about "getting allies on our side"? And would we really be happier with the current war in Iraq if Saudi Arabia were helping to foot the bill? I'm not sure I would be.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Another example of Liberals seeing only what they WANT to see, and not the whole picture. Now for the other side of the coin: since you're in a looking-things-up mood, did we make any HUGE loans or concessions to any countries right around the time they were "paying" for the cost of the Gulf War? (The US "persuaded" the World Bank to forgive Egypt's $14 billion debt and dropped our opposition to the Bank making huge loans to Iran, for starters.)

Posted by: CavalierX at September 16, 2004 06:20 PM (sA6XT)

2 You poor, poor things, you're really confused aren't you? The Bush II administration clearly vastly underestimated what this war would cost (it will be more than double the first war), but we had a real coalition the first time and they helped deferr the costs. This time we're assuming the entire cost for what Bush claims is making the world a safer place. Isn't that rather stupid? Sadly, yes.

Posted by: bushgirlsgonewild at September 16, 2004 07:44 PM (vzHiG)

3 IT's a shame that we couldn't get some of our old friends to shoulder the monetary burden . But then again since they did the last time even our good friends in the UK woudln't allow us to take Baghdad or do anything about Saddam . As the world goes on and on about how this war is so horrible an even worse thing happens in Darfur and other places where they turn a blind eye. Amazing isnt it. But then again , if there's something to be done . The US must lead the way or no one goes and does much of anything.

Posted by: MorningSun at September 17, 2004 01:52 AM (EPBbn)

4 Learn history, read, do something rather than display your inability to research to the entire world 'cos France sent troops to Gulf War I! Sorry for being heavy but I feel like you must have watching CNN World.

Posted by: Tadhgin at September 29, 2004 03:46 AM (eoRrs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I can't get the link at C-SPAN to work, which is disappointing because I'd really like to hear Gov. Schwarzenegger's charming voice as he gives this speech. I'm with Lileks: I like him.

MORE TO GROK:

Kalroy's link worked. Heh. Arnold just said "girlie-men", and George H.W. Bush and I both cracked up!

Posted by: Sarah at 02:29 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

I hear Rudy Giuliani was a hit. I can't watch the RNC here, so I have to read it, and I like what I read. And you know what else I like? I like having a president who's uncomfortable with the Queen of England and completely at home with a crew of construction workers. But maybe that's just me.

MORE TO GROK:

Thanks, NightHawk. It was even better to watch than to read.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:49 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Steyn says the same thing that I told my friend when we discussed stem cell research:

But [Bush at the RNC] will talk up successes in the war and remind us that, if we don't win it, the best prescription-drugs plan in the world isn't going to make much difference.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:12 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Long-time readers will know that nothing gets my blood boiling like some snotty intellectual calling average Americans stupid. They frequently do it to our servicemembers, which really ticks me off. And they do it all the time to our President. Nothing makes me madder than the audacity of a statement like this:

Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure their SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.

OK, well we all know President Bush's grades, since "Bush is dumb" is like sooo 2000. What are Kerry's grades, then? Can't Howell Raines find them and make a factual statement instead of resorting to bandwagon techniques?

I don't know what happens behind closed White House doors. I don't really care who's pulling most of the weight, be it Bush or Cheney or Rice. As a team, they're getting the job done. But, having absolutely no facts at my disposal, I'm not sure I want to poke at President Bush's IQ. What does IQ measure? Little picture games and mind puzzles and making connections and so on. I think President Bush might do quite well on a test of this nature.

Smarts isn't about memorizing and regurgitating, which is what the SAT and grades are about. Hell, I'm freaking awesome at that. I can play the school game like nobody's business, which is how you end up valedictorian and summa cum laude. But I'm slowly learning that playing school and playing life are completely different things.

Last night I had my second stats class. We learned variance and standard deviation, long formulas involving sigmas and x-bars and things that give most math-fearing people (the majority of the class) the heebie-jeebies. But I got the formulas right away. I figured out how to do the functions on the calculator right away. But then when I raised my hand and asked for how it applies to the real world, I could hear the panic in people's gasps. It's bad enough we have to plug in the frequency and take square roots, for chrissake, who cares what it all means! But I cared. I'm not taking stats just to finish a degree; I'm taking it because I want to know how it applies to the real world. And I could easily see how to plug in all the data, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out the relationship between the answer we got (18.2 cents) and the real problem (increase cigarette taxes in 27 states).

It's very humbling to realize you can't figure it out unless the teacher shows you how.

I've realized that I've an overabundance of capability, but no real ability to decipher relationships on my own. Give me formulas, give me numbers, and I'll give you all the answers, but ask me what it means and I'll stutter. And I get A's and had a relatively high SAT score. (I'm getting better at it through blogging, but I'm still stunned by the likes of Den Beste, Bunker, and CavX. I'll never get to that level.)

President Bush, and whoever else is working behind closed doors with him, can see the big picture. I don't care if he can plug the numbers into the calculator himself or if Cheney does it for him, as long as he continues to get 'er done. What indication do we have that Kerry sees the big picture? He obviously can't even make the mental relationship that voting for war and against funding makes you look like a jackass.

Look, I just don't like to call anyone stupid. I especially don't like it when Howell Raines -- who presumably thought Jayson Blair was pretty smart -- points his finger at the President. There's much more to smarts than grades in college; I'd say, to quote CavX, that

spending the last three years destroying terrorist training camps, breaking up terror cells in the US and abroad, uncovering a multinational nuclear proliferation ring, forcing belligerent North Korea to the bargaining table, cowing Libya into giving up its WMD programs and terrorist support, and winning two wars against terrorist-supporting Islamofascist dictatorships in the process

makes the President look pretty smart to me.

MORE TO GROK:

Instapundit says pretty much the same thing I said.

And Ann Althouse:

In any case, my questions about Kerry's intelligence do not arise solely from my inference that he had a poor academic record and low standardized test scores. My questions are also based on his exasperatingly convoluted and unclear manner of speaking. This has been excused as a propensity for "nuance" and "complexity," but could also be caused by a lack of mental capacity. It could also be willful evasion. I'd really like to know.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:10 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.

When the left-wing minions descended upon me a few months ago, spewing hatred and insults, it hurt. It hurts to be called names and told you're stupid and worthless. At that time, I found comfort in asking myself What Would Dubya Do? This is a man who has entire movies made about how worthless he is, yet he still manages to sleep at night. In terms of dealing with criticism and being self-confident, President George W. Bush is my personal hero. Whenever I feel down about myself, I remind myself that he deals with far worse every day.

I've read a couple of places today about how John Kerry is trying to get the FEC to shut down the SwiftVets ad. In my book, that makes Kerry about as spineless and weak-hearted as I am. I'm not a politician, so I'm allowed the luxury of feeling hurt when someone speaks bad of me; Kerry better get used to it if he plans on running the most hated country in the world.

I agree with LGF commenter William (found via Greyhawk) that this speaks volumes about Kerry's character.

While this is amusing and pathetic on the surface, what started as questions about Kerry's Vietnam era activity, Kerry has now turned into nothing less than a battle for free speech.

After Michael Moore's propaganda film, Bush never suggested it should be silenced.

After the moveon.org attack ads, Bush never suggested they should be silenced.

It's called freedom of speech (though Moore has moved perilously close to treason with his film while our troops are engaged in countries abroad).

Now Kerry seeks to silence free speech, because it's critical of his past.

For the blogosphere community, this has now moved past mocking the media for their absurdly obvious bias, and has become serious.

Kerry has changed the game with this move to shut down free speech.

If the media remain complicit now, they're not being complicit in smearing the SwiftVets, they're complicit in shutting down free speech -- the foundation of our society.

The "progressives" throw around labels of "fascism" and demonize John Ashcroft and Bush, but this has now become a battle for the country.

I don't think I'm exaggerating here. This has now become quite serious.

It is indeed serious. I grappled with this issue on my janky little blog -- whether to block certain commenters or close the comments section -- because I believe that people have the right to say what they think, even if it hurts my feelings. Shouldn't a presidential candidate in the United States of America believe in that as well?

MORE TO GROK:

More whining here. And Bunker writes about the media's fear.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:31 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

I've come up with a few questions that I'd like to pose to military wives who think voting Kerry is in their best interest.

1. Kerry has recently been talking about reducing the number of troops in Iraq as soon as he gets into office. Would you support this measure, knowing that it might mean that your husband could be stretched even thinner and have less support and back-up on his missions?

2. Kerry has also said that the reduction of American troops will be made possible by the addition of foreign, especially Arab, troops. This question is rather hypothetical, given that to date no additional nations have agreed to send troops if Kerry were elected, but would you rather have your husband fighting alongside Arab soldiers instead of other Americans?

3. Kerry recently spoke out against the genocide in Sudan and said, "we must also start planning now for the possibility that the international community, acting through the United Nations, will be forced to intervene urgently to save the lives of the innocent." There's no question that the situation in Sudan is horrible, but would you want your husband to deploy there as part of a UN-led peacekeeping mission?

Yep, they're loaded questions. But the problem is that many wives hear the words "Kerry's gonna reduce the number of troops in Iraq" and they don't think about the fine print. A premature reduction of troops means less stability and more strain for those who are left there. Do we really want to vote for that?

Posted by: Sarah at 05:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

To be honest, this is what I fear most. I don't even want to think about an assassination.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

So Kerry would have gone to war anyway, lack of WMDs and all. Um, huh? Anyway, he lays out four questions he'd like President Bush to answer. In the remaining 15 minutes before I have to leave for work, I am going to try to give the short answers:

Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own -- why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table.

1) It's my understanding that we really were surprised by the insurgency. OK, mistake. I understand that American intelligence relied too heavily on what Iraqi exiles said would happen. They were wrong. The military has been frank about their shortcomings though. We're trying to fix the problem, but unfortunately we've got the entire world breathing down our necks now. My husband said his unit gets shot at from mosques but they're not allowed to do anything back. That's a problem. Oh, and all that build-up at the UN? That's not a "rush to war".

2) There's a big difference between lying and being wrong. We had some faulty intelligence. So did Clinton. So did Putin. Heck, so did Saddam. We all thought he had WMDs. We were told he tried to buy yellowcake, which for all the hullabaloo turned out to actually be true. Intelligence is not an exact science, and we did the best we could with what we had.

3) "Why he misled Americans about how he would go to war" is an odd question. I've heard it phrased about why we should go to war, but never how. I don't quite understand the accusation here. Heh, maybe he means why Bush said there'd be shock and awe, when really it looked pretty lame from the TV set in my grandma's sewing room...

4) Oh the glorious "other countries" charge. Here's what I'd say to John Kerry:
Look, moron, even someone with a free geocities account appears to be better informed than you. Put down the guitar, shut off your "rap music", and take time to count the countries that support us in Iraq. And count the waving coalition flags on the Rottweiler's blog. Just because your precious France isn't on board doesn't mean we're alone.

I'll fill in links later [done, as of 0945]; I have to go to work. Unlike Kerry, I have to show up more than 30% of the time.

Ba-zing!

MORE TO GROK:

RWN answers the questions too, and says nearly the same stuff I said.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.