Interesting that Larry K. never acknowledged that he was wrong in his "facts" which he promises us, the RNC will be trumpeting to the skies soon--the alleged Kerry misstatements---which are facts--e. g. that the NY subway was in fact closed--no passage under Madison Square Garden during the Republican National Convention. Ah well, coming from a stalwart Bushite, who could be surprised?

I noticed something interesting in Bush's, as always, entirely objective description of the international situation--one of his favorite sound bites seemed to be the 10 million, including 40% women, who will soon vote in the coming Afghan election. A few problems here, inexplicably omitted by Bush---can't imagine why:


1) The 10 million appears to be wildly overstated, due in large part to the fact---, according to Human Rights Watch, which has some people actually over there--that many voters have registered more than once. When Karzai was asked about this, he evidently said it was fine with him, since it indicated how enthusiastic his people were about democracy.

2)   According to an interview I heard with one of the human rights reps just returned from Afghanistan the women are likely to vote the way their husbands tell them to--that's the stage they're at now---so the husbands will virtually get 2 votes.

3)   The warlords, who still rule Afghanistan, as it's been for a long time (the Taliban being just another of the species) are telling their respective populations how to vote.

4)   Guess who the guarantors of the objectivity of the election will be. That's right, the above warlords. Very few international observers this time, in contrast to many other elections--the US and others have provided many observers and/or money for them in other elections--too much demand elsewhere for both especially in Iraq.



On North Korea: Bush was at pains to establish the terrible affront to China if Kerry were to cut China out by having bilateral talks with North Korea. A little problem here---China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea.



The gist of all this is that either Bush is lying or he is woefully misinformed on a wide range of international issues. -- (Which is it, Larry K, Martin, Doug R et al?)-- But that doesn't stop him from spreading his wrong info to the widest possible TV audience.

Seems pretty clear that he richly deserves to retire to the ancestral home---Connecticut. It sure ain't Texas.



It seems Bobert's description of undecided voters as NASCAR Neanderthals is off the mark--according to several polling organizations most of the undecided are women 18 to 49, making between $18,000 and $50,000, who don't like Bush but needed a reason to vote for Kerry. It appears that in Thursday's "debate" Kerry gave them that reason, coming across as a credible leader who has a coherent plan.

Kerry did probably miss at least one opportunity to blow Bush out of the water. One of Bush's favorite mantras that night was "don't send mixed messages". Kerry could perhaps, if not hamstrung by the restrictive format have rhetorically queried just what was meant by this. The likely answer is, as Zell Miller has put it, to thunderous applause in the Republican convention as I recall--no bringing down the commander in chief in a time of war. That is: no criticism of the President's conduct of the war during wartime.

A few points on this:

1) Contrary to this fond myth, this has rarely been the case. Exceptions include: Lincoln on "Polk's War", Teddy Roosevelt's slashing attacks on Wilson, first for not entering World War I sooner, then on how he conducted US participation when we did enter, McArthur's view of Truman's conduct of the Korean War, not to mention the well-known Vietnam fiasco.

2) What war is Bush talking about here? He was at pains to establish that the Iraq situation is just part of the war on terror. So it's evidently the war on terror he's talking about. This war will never end. So---no criticism of the President forever?

I don't think so.

What about the little matter of freedom of speech? Somehow I was under the impression that's one of the things we're fighting to preserve. Evidently not in Bush's America.

Perhaps he's under the impression that freedom of speech is an outmoded French concept, and as French, to be shunned. Could that be it?