Right Wing Nut House

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today, we’ll look at the NY Times revelations about nuclear secrets being published. We’ll also update the elections and talk about specific races.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

The votes are in for this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is yours truly for “A Liberal Manifesto and Other Halloween Frights.” Finishing second was newbie American Future for “Japan, North Korea and Nuclear Weapons.”

Coming in first in the non-Council category was Elder of Ziyon for “Archaeological Temple Artifacts Drive PalArabs Crazy.”

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers Vote, go here and follow instructions.

Here we are 5 days before the election and some of my fellow conservatives still seem to think it’s Halloween. On more than one conservative site today I’ve read what will happen if the Democrats take over Congress next Tuesday, an event that judging by the blood curdling horror stories being told around GOP campfires, will be a cross between a Freddy Krueger nightmare and Michael Meyers gore splattering killing spree.

C’mon people! Get a grip! How bad can it really get?

Impeachment? Hey, who knows? We may come to like it. Sure would be a hedge against writers block anyway. And just imagine all the chances to fisk columnists, lefty bloggers, inane lefty twits, conspiracy loons, and the rest of the liberal cuckoos who will be controlling the government by the time its all over. You don’t think they wouldn’t impeach both Bush and Cheney now, do you? After all, if you think it’s easy to sit back now and pontificate how noble you are for staying home on election day and “teaching the Republicans a lesson,” think how much fun it will be to write about the decapitation of the United States government! Now that’s history. Always gives us a feeling of importance when we write about the great events that change the world.

I can just imagine the White House bathroom jokes about President Pelosi. They’ll be all the rage this time next year.

Tax increases? Who needs money? My own personal belief is that money is the root of all evil and the less of it we have the better off we’ll be. Think of all the problems in society that could be solved if we had less money to spend. There would be less obesity because we’d have fewer dollars to waste on snack food - if potato chips are still legal anyway once the liberal nannies get through with picking through our national grocery basket to make sure we’re all eating right.

And less money would mean fewer movies to see at the theater or rent at the video store. This would have an enormously salutary effect on Hollywood as we may finally get rid of Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, and a few other deadbeat celebrities who would probably move out of the United States anyway to dodge the hefty tax increases their liberal friends in Congress would impose on their gigantic, overbloated incomes. If Bono can do it, anyone should be able to.

Don’t forget what having less disposable income would mean to Wal-Mart. Sales of that giant, union busting, small business devouring, employee health care denying monstrosity would plummet, its profits dropping like a brick falling from one of the few houses still being built under liberal Democratic stewardship of the economy.

As for the “War on Terror,” at least we’ll finally be able to drop the quotation marks that are placed around the term every time it appears in print. Now don’t get me wrong. That doesn’t mean that liberals are actually going to do something about terrorism, per se. We’ll see a lot more attention paid to Muslim “grievances” that’s for sure - like their grievance against our having life and breath on this planet.

But with liberals in charge, I’m sure we’ll start addressing those “root causes” of terrorism right quick. Poverty in the Middle East? Maybe we could come up with some kind of “Marshall Plan” for all those countries so fat and bloated with petro-dollars that their corrupt, kleptocratic royal families can’t spend it fast enough on drugs, white slaves, and other debauched extravagances. We shouldn’t ask them to spend their own money to pull their people out of poverty - not when the left is so desperate to spend our money on their behalf.

Oh…and a short note to Israel. Duck.

Of course, we’ll have to leave Iraq but Bush was ready to leave anyway so there won’t be such a big difference there - except I can’t wait to see the liberals dancing in the streets with the jihadis as the last American helicopter takes off from the multi-billion dollar unfinished American embassy and the left’s wet dream of reliving their glory days of Viet Nam comes true. That’s what it’s been about all along - recapturing the glory of youth in the protest era when sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll was more than just an advertising slogan for hedonism. Yes the sex is a little harder at our age and the drug we use is more likely to be Viagra than LSD (although there’s a combination I’m dying to try). But rock ‘n roll will always be rock ‘n roll - even if the arthritis in our knees keeps us from dancing quite the way we did the last time liberalism reigned supreme and it was cool to be anti-American.

Despite the cessation of hostilities with Israel and the establishment of an international buffer force under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, the internal political situation in Lebanon has slowly metastasized into a cancerous growth that, if not excised, could lead to the downfall of the Siniora government and the reestablishment of Syrian hegemony over the tiny nation.

Prime Minister Siniora’s headaches actually began during the war with Israel. Deliberately initiating hostilities by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, Hezb’allah leader Hassan Nasrallah virtually took over the Lebanese government during the course of the conflict. It was Nasrallah who decided questions of war and peace, treating the Prime Minister as little more than an errand boy. In effect, Nasrallah claimed veto power over any efforts to negotiate an end to the war, thus making himself de facto head of the government.

In the aftermath of the conflict, with much of Lebanon’s infrastructure in ruins and tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens homeless, Siniora re-established his control over the government with both shrewd political maneuvering and a healthy infusion of cash from several Arab neighbors that helped alleviate some of the immediate suffering of the people.

The March 14th Forces who formed a coalition in the wake of the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and helped throw the Syrians out of Lebanon after a quarter century of occupation, subsequently winning a legislative majority in Parliament, at first seemed stunned by developments. Remaining relatively quiet during the war while Hezb’Allah dominated the government, it was only after the conflict was over that the democrats got busy. They strongly denounced Hezb’allah’s warmaking and rightly pointed to Nasrallah’s role in superseding the elected government of Prime Minister Siniora.

But what Siniora and the March 14th forces didn’t count on were calls by the opposition in Parliament for the formation of a “Government of National Unity” within days following cessation of hostilities with Israel. And the chief troublemaker on this front turned out to be the leader of the largely Christian party the Free Patriotic Movement’s Michel Aoun.

The former General, head of the Lebanese armed forces, and Prime Minister has proven himself to be something of a thorn in the side of the March 14th forces since his return from exile in Paris just prior to the parliamentary elections in 2005. Refusing to ally himself and his party with the democrats- largely because they refused to endorse his desire to replace President Emile Lahoud - the FPM garnered 21 of the 128 seats in the elections and, in a surprise move, allied themselves with the opposition headed up by Nasrallah’s Hezb’allah. Their “Memorandum of Understanding” called for Hezb’allah’s disarmament - but only after several conditions had been met including the “return” of the Shebba Farms to Lebanon (the tiny enclave has never been part of Lebanon) and a settlement with Syria had been affected.

All of this was to take place in the context of the National Dialogue, a group of party and religious leaders representing all factions in Lebanon who have been given a mandate by Parliament to come up with solutions to some of Lebanon’s thornier problems. These include a new electoral law that will rid the nation once and for all of some of its more arcane sectarian political divisions as well as deciding the fate of the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud. The agreement between Aoun and Nasrallah effectively cut the legs out from underneath the group and little in the way of progress was achieved.

Indeed, one of the most important issues facing the country - and the proximate cause for much of the current political unrest - cannot be addressed by the leadership group. The formation of an international tribunal to try those responsible for the assassination of Hariri as well as more than 20 other acts of terrorism and murder carried out since the February 14, 2005 death of the former prime minister threatens to precipitate a political crisis that would oust Siniora and bring to power a government under the thumb of Hassan Nasrallah and through him, Syria and Iran.

The United States has become so concerned about the potential for Syrian and Iranian troublemaking in this regard that it has taken the unusual step of issuing a warning to the two states to keep their hands off Lebanese sovereignty:

The United States has said there is “mounting evidence” that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are planning to topple the Lebanese government.

The White House said Syria hoped to stop the formation of an international tribunal to try suspects in the killing of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

Spokesman Tony Snow said any attempt to destabilise the Lebanese government would violate UN resolutions.

Aoun and Nassrallah’s calls for a national unity government are basically a smokescreen. Their real goal is for a new government that would feature Hezb’allah veto power over any important decisions made by the cabinet. By agitating for one third of the ministries to be awarded to the Nasrallah/Aoun coalition in any new ministerial lineup, the March 14th Forces would be stymied in their efforts to keep Lebanon out of the clutching grasp of Syria. And the prospect of nationwide political paralysis which could lead to another civil war would become more pronounced.

Quietly and without any fanfare, and important member of the March 14th Forces paid a visit to Washington this week for talks with Secretary Rice and other officials. The old Druze warlord and head the Progressive Socialists party Walid Jumblatt, who has become one of the more outspoken opponents of Nasrallah and Hezb’allah, may have had something to do with the US government warning to Iran and Syria. Jumblatt has been sounding the alarm for months about Nasrallah’s designs as well as never missing an opportunity to tar the Hezb’allah leader with being a cat’s paw for Syria and Iran:

Lebanese leader Walid Jumblatt has warned that Hezbollah’s advocated street demonstrations to topple PM Fouad Siniora’s government will paralyze the country and cause “chaos.”

Jumblatt ’s comments were made Tuesday during a panel discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, at the end of a U.S. visit where he met with top U.S. officials.

On Hezbollah’s demands for the formation of a national unity government, Jumblatt said that the Shiite group and its Christian ally General Michel Aoun intended to form a new cabinet so they could control one-third of the government.

If the current government is overthrown, Jumblatt said, “the country would live in paralysis.”

He said that the reason behind this demand “is to cause chaos, stop the international tribunal” and interrupt the implementation of U.N. resolutions.”

Jumblatt, whose father was assassinated by Syrian agents and whose family has led the Druze for generations, may himself be in danger. More than once, Nasrallah has warned the March 14th Forces not to criticize “The Resistance” as Hezb’allah wants to be known. But this hasn’t stopped Jumblatt and others from resisting Nasrallah’s demands.

In a recent interview with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, Secretary Rice referred to the possibility of political assassinations, including a “new list” of potential targets:

Now, in terms of — we know that Lebanon has unfortunately had too many assassinations, too many tragic circumstances. You know that better than any. And so the evidence is there that foreign influences have — ever since the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri — have tried to use assassination and intimidation against the Lebanese people. But the Lebanese people are very resilient people, and they keep coming back to their desire to have a democratic future and to live together, not to be driven again into civil war. We worry these days that –

QUESTION: But no specific information about the assassinations?

SECRETARY RICE: You get information from time to time that there are forces that would want to do this. But if there is specific information, of course, we will pass it on to the Lebanese so that they can try and guard against it.

QUESTION: We heard about new list.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we too have heard that there are people who would like to destabilize the government of Prime Minister Siniora. We’ve heard that there are people who would like to intimidate or assassinate again. They’ve done it before in Lebanon.

QUESTION: Well, what about (inaudible) –

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it’s not any great secret that there are concerns about what Syria, which once occupied the country, might try and do through continuing contacts in the country. But I don’t want to accuse any one place; I just want to make very clear that the international community believes there should be no foreign intimidation of the Lebanese people

And to go along with this kind of intimidation, Nasrallah himself has threatened to send his bully boys into the streets in order to foment violence that could threaten Prime Minister Siniora’s hold on power:

Hizbullah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, warned late Tuesday that Hizbullah and its allies will take to the streets “for as long as it takes … to either topple the government or hold early and new parliamentary elections,” if consultations to form a national unity government should fail.

In an interview with Hizbullah’s Al-Manar television, Nasrallah said it is a democratic right to demand the change of a government through “peaceful demonstrations.”

“Those who are currently in the government demonstrated in the streets last year until they toppled the Cabinet of Premier Omar Karami,” he noted. “Why aren’t we allowed to do the same? If we demand this right, they call us rioters?”

All of these political maneuvering and threats are taking place against the backdrop of the formation of an International Tribunal to try the perpetrators of the Hariri assassination. Evidence gathered first by UN Prosecutor Detleve Mehlis and his successor Serge Brammertz points the finger squarely at the highest levels of both the Syrian and Lebanese governments including President Bashar Assad himself who pointedly warned Hariri just days before his death that he would bring “Lebanon down on your head” if Hariri dared oppose the extension of President Lahoud’s term in office. Others, including Assad’s brother in law who heads up the Syrian secret police and Lebanese army officers were also implicated in the plot.

President Lahoud himself may have had a hand in the assassination or at least knew of the plot’s existence. With all of these figures at risk of being prosecuted by a non-Lebanese judicial body, is it any wonder that both Syrians and their allies in Lebanon are anxious to quash the formation of such a court by overthrowing Siniora and placing their own toadies in power?

Herein lies the danger for Siniora and the March 14th forces. In order for the international body to be seated, the cabinet must approve. Already, President Lahoud is setting up roadblocks in the form of a lengthy 32 page protest, couched in constitutional language, that would throw a monkey wrench into the entire process. Coupled with the threatened street demonstrations by Hezb’allah, Siniora will have his hands full trying to maintain control while getting his cabinet to agree on the composition and makeup of the tribunal:

Many political observers have commented that Syria is extremely nervous about the International Tribunal. This is why they say Syria is trying to destabilize the country by trying to dump Prime Minister Siniora and his cabinet through Hezbollah and its main ally General Michel Aoun.

One observer said “Lahoud is heavily indebted to Syria for forcing the Lebanese parliament in 2004 to change the constitution in order to extend his term by another 3 years”. It is obvious the observer added ” Syria told Lahoud what to do and this is exactly why he is trying to stall the tribunal”. The observer concluded ” what a shame for a country to have its president as a foreign agent” .

At the moment, the March 14th Forces are standing firm, united in their opposition to Nasrallah’s interference. But with the prospect that the National Dialogue will reconvene and have on its agenda the possibility of urging the formation of a National Unity Government, Prime Minister Siniora’s political skills will be tested as never before over the next few months.

Whether he can succeed in his efforts to remain in power while trying to keep Lebanon from descending into chaos will decide whether a weak an fragile Lebanese democracy - stretched to the breaking point during the war - can survive for much longer.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today we’ll look at amnesty in Iraq for killers of Americans. We’ll also discuss “get out the Vote” scenarios for the GOP. And Lebanon is in the news again.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

A day late and a dollar short but welcome nevertheless:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

Short, sweet, and to the point. Sincere? My friend Bird Dog at Maggies Farm made a point overlooked, I believe, by many on both the right and the left:

Let me begin by saying that I do not think that Kerry misspoke. I believe he said what he meant, regardless of whether it is what he was scripted to say.

Why do I think that? Because what he said is classic, typical Eastern lefty condescending elitist talk: I hear this kind of thing at every Cambridge cocktail party. It is completely normal talk in the Kerry’s circles. And because he is still stuck in 1968.

I’ve been back and forth on the issue of whether he botched a joke or, as BD suggests, simply was being himself in disparaging the troops. In the end, since his apology was so obviously forced upon him, we’ll never know where the truth lies.

Of course, the Senator couldn’t let an opportunity slip by to blame someone else for his own hubris and stupidity:

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

Does he expect us to believe that he really wants to implement a “winning strategy” in order to “win” the war when he has offered a timetable for withdrawal not based on anything except the passage of time? The Senator’s withdrawal resolution was rejected by the Senate 86-13 and would have required all American troops to pull out of Iraq by July 1, 2007, one year from the date of passage.

Two weeks later, 11 insurgent groups demanded that American troops leave Iraq in 2 years. In short, the enemy was willing to give our military twice as long to quit Iraq as the Senator from Massachusetts.

I guess that’s a liberal’s idea of “victory.”

And Kerry’s acknowledgement that his “verbal slip” was a “diversion” could mean that the issue resonated a lot deeper with the American people than many Democrats are willing to admit. Not surprising if you peruse lefty websites and take a gander at the comments left by the netnuts that talk about how retarded or ignorant our men in uniform for being suckers and defending the United States. With this kind of attitude prevalent on the left, the Democrats were probably desperate to put that display of “patriotism” and “supporting the troops” back in the basement where they’ve tried to keep it the entire campaign season.

They tie it up right next to the economy - another issue that’s hardly seen the light of day this election season.

Kerry’s gaffe and forced apology have injected an unknown element into the campaign going into the final few days. My own sense is that it may affect a few state wide races - Burns and Talent in Montana and Missouri especially may benefit. But on the local level in Congressional districts, it might not be more than a small boost to Republican turnout. Helpful but not decisive.

Will Democrats be able to forget this and give Kerry another look when the 2008 campaign season starts? Stay tuned.

UPDATE

Allah has a list of who is accepting the apology and who isn’t.

Preston has a point about the statement being an attack ad more than an apology. But six days before an election, would we expect anything else?

As for the others, they’re not going to get anything better from Kerry plus the story is now dead. Making a commotion about his apology might be a good way to squeeze one more statement or blog post out of the matter but for all practical purposes, it’s over. Let’s move on.

UPDATE II

Ladies and Gentlemen…May I present a prominent member of the new majority party:

I don’t want to be around people too afraid of their own shadows to be worth anything. I want to be around fighters.

Somebody botches a joke. Big f**king deal. Laugh at those who would make it an issue, kick them in the shin for good measure, then move on.

Sincerely yours,

Kos

(VIA DRUDGE) WHO SAYS OUR WARRIORS DON’T HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR?

Rest assured that the above picture will be the most displayed picture on the internet by the end of the day.

Also, the MSM is in full feeding frenzy on the story. That’s right. Six days before the election and what is the media reporting? Bush’s failure in Iraq? Incompetence in government? Republican turpitude?

Nope. The mainstream press (despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left) is wondering if, how, when, and why not John Kerry is apologizing for his “botched joke” on the President that turned into an unintentional smear against the troops.

Kerry doesn’t get it. Most of the left certainly doesn’t get it. Many Democrats don’t get it either. It doesn’t matter what you meant when you said it. The fact that you said it and haven’t acknowledged the words themselves as a mistake, a verbal burp, is not only extremely impolite but also crass, arrogant, and has the super-rich Senator from Massachusetts appearing to be above the ordinary niceties that allow for the smooth functioning of a civil society.

In short, it makes him look petty and small. And the longer he goes without apologizing or acknowledging the fact that he unintentionally slimed the troops in Iraq, the less forgiving the American people will be towards him and his party.

Despite the unbelievable corruption and incompetence of the Republicans, the American people have made it absolutely plain that they will hand power to the Democrats only with the greatest reluctance. And the longer this matter continues to fog up TV screens and until the blood in the water has fully dissipated, the voters are going to be reminded exactly why they approach voting for Democrats with such trepidation. Kerry’s self-inflicted gaffe has actually come along at a perfect time for Republicans - almost as if Evil Karl had scripted the entire scenario himself. As recently as early this morning, I was predicting that the story wouldn’t amount to much, especially if Kerry apologized promptly.

But since then, the press has gone nuts with the story. It’s all over the nets and occupying almost 8 minutes of every hour’s broadcast on the cable news outlets. Not saturation coverage but give it time. Another 48 hours and we’ll have Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the press camped out in front of Kerry’s house holding vigil for word on when the “apology” will be forthcoming.

An exaggeration? Probably. But think about the poor Democratic challengers, heading down the homestretch of their historic run for a majority, not being able to make points with the voters about incompetent George or dirty, rotten Republicans, but instead having to answer questions about John Kerry. Think about that brand, spanking new GOP attack ad calling on Kerry to apologize airing in Virginia, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio. And think about all the other Democrats standing by and watching as their former standard bearer, war hero, and leading liberal light takes them closer to defeat than they thought possible even a week ago.

Kerry will be forced to acknowledge his mistake and make contrition to the troops for unintentionally smearing them because if he doesn’t, he can almost certainly kiss 2008 goodbye. And because this lickspittle of a man - this cold and calculating political beast of a man - does nothing better than looking out for his own political hide, I fully expect some statement in the next 24 hours that will be passed off as an apology even though it will almost certainly fall far short of any such thing.

If he doesn’t? I’ll let you in a my inner thinking today. I’ve been thinking about Al Michaels historic call at the end of the USA-USSR Olympic hockey game in 1980 when a bunch of college kids beat the greatest hockey team in history…

“Do you believe in miracles…YES!

UPDATE

Bird Dog at Maggie’s Farm has a superior piece about Kerry (and perhaps the ugliest picture of Kerry as a young man I have ever seen). BD thinks that Kerry meant what he said about the troops. I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt but BD makes a fairly convincing case.

Also, Michelle got a hold of the picture above even before Drudge and has some excerpts from a conversation the President had with Rush Limbaugh about the troops and about Kerry and the Democrats.

Most of us who follow politics more than casually have become inured to campaign gaffes like the one John Kerry fell into a couple of days ago. After all, implying that our troops in Iraq are stupid losers who who didn’t do their homework or work hard in school so that they could “avoid” military service (in an all-volunteer army?) had to have been some kind of misstatement - although the haughty disdain with which he uttered the remark and his subsequent refusal to apologize calls into question all of the ink spilled by his apologists that he was skewering the President of the United States rather than combat troops fighting and dying in the field.

I guess we’ll just have to take the Senator’s word for it that he botched a joke that no one has ever heard him tell. And considering Kerry’s own marks when he was in books compared to Bush, one wonders who the joke was on in the first place.

But we’ve now moved beyond the “campaign gaffe” stage of the story and into the “apology vigil” segment. When will The Great Man lower himself and humbly beg the voter’s pardon for misspeaking? My guess is sometime this morning a slightly more contrite but still defiant Kerry will appear before a bank of microphones and grudgingly acknowledge that his remark may have given offense. Apologizing for the incredibly vile personal attacks he unleashed in his angry statement yesterday may take a little longer - like when the nether regions experience a severe case of hellish cooling.

No matter. Party leaders have probably been on the phone with the Senator half the night pointing out that it is now no longer a question of what he said about the troops but rather his refusal to acknowledge his mistake that is driving the story. Every hour that goes by without a Kerry mea culpa lessens the level of sincerity the American people will take any apology or explanation by the Senator whenever it comes.

As he blundered with the Swift Boat Vets so too now The Arrogant One is blundering with this minor “slip of the tongue.” Not recognizing the damage being done to both his party and his reputation, Kerry is once again slow off the mark to respond to danger. Anyone see a pattern here? The Senator, always appearing to be conflicted about his service to the country during Viet Nam, seems equally conflicted about lancing a campaign boil that, at bottom, speaks to his bona fides as a loyal veteran of the armed forces. The Swift Vets questioned his honesty and courage. This latest kerfuffle questions his honesty and character. For it takes real character to recognize a mistake and apologize - something even Andrew Sullivan can see:

What Kerry said he must apologize for. Sooner rather than later. He may not have meant it the way it came out. That doesn’t matter. It’s wrong to talk about the military that way - wrong morally, empirically and ethically. And the way he said it can be construed as a patronizing snub to the men and women whose lives are on the line. It’s also dumb politically not to kill this off in one news cycle. Is Kerry not content to lose just one election? Does his enormous ego have to insist on losing two?

Sullivan refers to the question on desperate Republican minds today; how much will this affect the voting next Tuesday?

Not too damn much, I’m afraid. Where the story matters most - red state America - the imperiled Republican incumbents will hardly be able to “nationalize” their race into a referendum on Kerry or the Democrats and their real attitudes toward the troops. That dog ain’t hunting, not this late in the game. To many, it simply re-enforces people’s beliefs about the left and their disdain for America’s fighting men. And it appears the American people are willing to live with that just as long as it’s a Democrat bringing down the gavel when the House reconvenes in January.

At the same time, I disagree with John Cole and his buddy Kos that this is all a tempest in a teapot and not really an issue in the campaign:

Again, I wish Kerry had not made the remark (or phrased it better), but really, it changes nothing. The Republican party has no plan for Iraq other than rhetorical shifts, their policies are not constructed or implemented to actually accomplish anything but rather to maintain Congressional power, and we all will be better off if the GOP is swept out of power. The Republicans are corrupt, morally bankrupt, have no ideas, no principles, and are hoping upon hope that this latest distraction will help to stop the bleeding. Unfortunately, the bleeding they care about is at the polls and not the bleeding in Iraq.

Let’s crush their hopes.

Note: Also check out former Republican/still a conservative Cole’s anguished, whiny, nauseating, self pitying, screed here where he solemnly announces the Republican party has left him behind because all they’re interested in is power and politics.

Duh.

They are, after all, politicians who happen to be in the majority. Not being interested in being re-elected and maintaining their majority would constitute a form of political suicide that would truly be unique in the history of American politics. While Cole is correct in pointing out their malfeasance and incompetence, (I would add arrogance and an unhealthy disdain for the electorate), his self-serving, holier-than-thou shots at fellow bloggers who don’t quite see the world the way he does reveals the West Virginian to be a small minded, petulant man indeed. The GOP certainly does not deserve to be returned to majority status. But then, the Democrats don’t deserve anything except the utter and complete contempt of conservatives. Cole doesn’t like the fact that elections are about choices. Well, as I’ve written before, if it comes down to a choice between Republicans and Democrats, give me the side that doesn’t put “The War on Terror” in quotation marks and spread vicious lies about stolen elections and wars for oil.

As I said, read the whole thing. Just make sure you have a barf bag handy.

Kos, like Cole, sees Much Ado About Nothing:

Kerry responded perfectly. Perhaps not in a way that the DC wise men would approve, those Gang of 500 fools who have enabled this administration’s disasters at home and abroad.

Perhaps not in a way that will appease the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and their acolytes who would rather talk tough than actually show genuine courage by enlisting in the armed forces.

And sure, not in a way that will appease Republicans hoping to find anything to desperately detract from their crappy policies, crappy candidates, and lie- and hate-filled campaigns.

Yeah, those people won’t be happy with Kerry’s response.

But in this case, Kerry responded the right way. Not by bowing to the full blast of the right wing noise machine, but by standing up to it on behalf of our troops, our nation, and the truth.

As I said yesterday, the netnuts can’t see the practical benefits of a Kerry apology through the veil of their own hate. They are cheering him on to destruction because his childish name calling and anger against his detractors mirrors perfectly their own feelings of inadequacy and powerlessness which expresses itself sometimes in wild conspiracy theories but more often in simple, direct, malignant loathing of conservatives.

Not to be outdone in the hysterical denunciations of the right department, MSNBC’s Keith Olberman rises to the occasion:

Senator John Kerry has, in essence, called out President Bush for not being smart, not studying, and being intellectually lazy. And the President and his minions have replied by demanding that Kerry apologize — to the troops in Iraq. Kerry called them stupid, and they were too stupid to know he called them stupid. Our fifth story in the Countdown, to top his own original remarkable comments and the administration’s equally remarkable missing of the point, intentional or otherwise, there is also Kerry’s response, blistering with phrases like ‘crazy,’ ’stuffed suit,’ ‘lied,’ ‘lie,’ ‘lying,’ ‘Republican hacks,’ ‘right-wing nut jobs,’ and ‘doughy.’ We begin where the story did at yesterday’s rally for the Democratic candidate for governor of California. Senator Kerry charming the college-age crowd with tales of surfing before segueing into a series of one-liners about his former opponent in the 2004 race for the White House, Mr. Bush.”

Yes, “charming” indeed.

One of the shrewdest political observers in the media, Time Magazine’s Karen Tumulty sums up Kerry’s situation nicely:

His initial impulse, predictably enough, was to fight back against the criticism. He didn’t want to fall again into what turned out to be the biggest trap of 2004, when he failed to understand that a relatively small ad buy from a group that no one had ever heard of could be more damaging than he imagined. He was determined not to be “swift-boated” again. So he declared: “If anyone owes our troops in the fields an apology, it is the President and his failed team and a Republican majority in the Congress that has been willing to stamp — rubber-stamp policies that have done injury to our troops and to their families.” But even Rand Beers, his national security adviser in the 2004 campaign, said: “It’s unfortunate that Senator Kerry misspoke. No one who has ever been in combat would intentionally impugn our brave troops.”

In other words, Kerry has managed on the eve of what could be a watershed election to remind pretty much everyone what it was they didn’t like about the Democrats, and especially what they didn’t like about him. It might have made more sense just to say he was sorry — for once to get ahead of a mistake, instead of trying to compensate for it the next time.

Kerry will buckle today, bowing to the enormous pressure his friends in the party will place on him to offer some sort of apologia for his “joke.” The media will be satisfied no matter what he says as long as the word “sorry” is stuck in the statement somewhere. Even if it’s buried, they will be drawn to it like moths to a porch light and trumpet the Senator’s “sincerity” to the skies.

And the world will begin to turn again, the sun will set in the west, and Republican chances for maintaining control of the House and Senate will remain exactly as they were before the words of disparagement left the Senator’s mouth.

In other words, Nancy Pelosi and probably Harry Reid can resume packing. They’re movin’ on up to the majority side…

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey points to a general tip-toeing away from Kerry by Democrats running for office as one congressional candidate from Iowa has already cancelled a Kerry appearance:

Will we see more of this? Kerry has scheduled events here in Minnesota for Tim Walz and a party-building event for the DFL (Minnesota’s Democrats) today. Tonight he goes to Pennsylvania to campaign for Bob Casey, Jr, and the Braley campaign event was scheduled for tomorrow.

Will Walz withdraw his invitation to Kerry as well? Will Casey?

Only if the Senator keeps this story alive for another day by not admitting his mistake. Ed’s gut feeling about Kerry’s losing an opportunity to close out the story quickly is spot on.

When I first read of John Kerry’s remarks holding our troops in Iraq up as an example of what happens if you fail in school, my contempt for the man - already high - passed over into the realm of having the mere mention of his name trigger my gagging reflex. How in the name of all that is good and holy did this man come so close to commanding these very same troops that he has so cavalierly disparaged? And an even more basic question this election season is can’t the Democrats see that Kerry, as their nominee for the highest office in the land in 2004, speaks for them when is quoted thusly?

The contemptuousness that Kerry showed by making those remarks was exceeded by his statement today that, rather than clarifying his remarks or apologizing for them, he hurls the rawest and most shocking invective at Republicans only seen perhaps on the far left websites that the Senator from Massachusetts has been writing for recently:

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.”

Note for the record that Kerry does not even address the subject of his insulting remarks. Rather, he slimes his critics - a classic defense strategy for murderers and rapists but not, one assumes, a United States Senator who ran for President two short years ago.

Those are extremely personal attacks. Rarely does a politician immerse himself so thoroughly in excremental politics by debasing the motives, the honesty, and the honor of his opponents as Kerry did in that short statement. No doubt, the ignoramuses on the left are cheering Kerry on. This, the man who consorted with the enemy during the Viet Nam War, who met with representatives of the Viet Cong and agreed to carry their propaganda water for them here in the United States while that very same enemy was shooting and killing men in uniform that Kerry now pretends to respect.

Kerry is as cold and calculating a politician as there has been on the American scene since Nixon. Whether he knew his remarks would generate the firestorm of controversy that they have is beside the point. Given the opportunity to give the finger to his opponents while catering to the powerful netnuts and their ability to mobilize money, resources, and political support, the Senator designed his response to appeal to the far left as a way to separate himself from other potential Democratic presidential hopefuls. He has become angry and spiteful - just like them. In this, the Kos Kids and others on the far left see Kerry as a kindred spirit, someone who “speaks their language.” How well this personae will play in 2008 remains to be seen. For the moment, it allows him to bask in the glow of their admiration and affection.

Michelle Malkin points out that coverage of Kerry’s remarks by the MSM is sorely lacking. One week before the election, this shouldn’t be surprising; not the way that most news organs have cheered the Democrats on in shockingly shameless fashion. What little attention that has been paid to the Senator’s remarks have come as a result of reaction to them by the White House and other conservatives.

Lost in all of this was what Kerry actually said - that if you didn’t study hard, do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, a student would get “stuck” in Iraq - and what was implied. The obvious implication that Kerry did not address in his statement today was that our soldiers in Iraq are the dregs of society, that they are failures in school and should not be emulated.

Sickening. And the fact that the Senator doesn’t deny either what he said or what he implied in his statement today shows that the remarks were exactly as he meant them, that there was no misunderstanding.

So far, no major Democratic figure has come out and chastised Kerry for his remarks. We may be in for a long wait if we are expecting such condemnation any time soon. At bottom, it really doesn’t matter in a political sense. Kerry could be discovered naked in Osama’s bed and it wouldn’t help the Republicans that much. And in this respect, it gets me madder at Republicans than I was yesterday. How conservatives so thoroughly bollixed things up in Washington and allowed people like Kerry to perhaps sit in the majority by their arrogance and malfeasance should make all of us mad.

UPDATE

Kerry now says he was trying to make a joke about President Bush and that the last line of the joke was “…You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.” Predictably, the netnuts have rushed to Kerry’s defense.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind - nor should there be in any rational observers’ - that after watching the video of those remarks by Kerry he meant exactly what he said and that he said what he meant to say.

There was no fumbling for words. There was no stumbling over a sentence - two clues that would lead one to give the Senator at least the benefit of the doubt. And the emphasis he placed on “stuck in Iraq” as well as with the tone of voice that bespoke such utter and complete contempt for the military leads one to the inescapable conclusion that Kerry is a liar of monstrous proportions when he says that he left a couple of words out of a joke on Bush.

Why does this surprise us? He has consistently disparaged the military during his entire public life. He has demonstrated utter contempt for ordinary Americans on numerous occassions.

Those of you who believe this mountebank should go and watch the video. Then you come back here and tell me that he was joking.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

While the bloody, ongoing drama in Iraq continues to occupy the attention of most Americans, events in Pakistan threaten to upset the delicate balancing act that President Pervez Musharraf has been forced to perform with more conservative, anti-American factions in the government as well as pro-Taliban tribes ensconced along the border with Afghanistan.

The strike at a madrassa in the northern federally administered tribal area of Bajur that was aimed at killing al-Qaeda Number 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri may have missed its intended target. But original reports that it was the Pakistani military that carried out the attack seems to have been issued solely for Musharraf’s benefit; the facts on the ground as well as leaks from US military sources point to missiles being fired from a US Predator drone as the probable means by which several top level al-Qaeda leaders may have been killed along with dozens of Taliban and al-Qaeda recruits.

From Musharraf’s point of view, the revelation that the attack was probably carried out by Special Operations units designated as “Task Force 145″ could not have come at a worse time. Already, his enemies are calling for demonstrations to protest what they say was Musharraf’s acquiescence in a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. And, according to analyst Bill Roggio, the attack put a crimp in Musharraf’s latest effort to appease the Taliban by signing an agreement with local terrorist leaders in Bajur that would remove the Pakistani army from the region and effectively deny the military the ability to prevent access to Afghanistan by the militants:

The strike came just as the Bajur accords were supposed to take place (similar to the Waziristan accords that now prevent Pakistan’s military from operating in that region). Officials within the Pakistani government were supposedly worried when early reports surfaced that Faqir Mohammed may have been killed. Faqir Mohammed is a Taliban leader in the region who would have been a major signatory to the accords: if he were killed, the Pakistanis wouldn’t know who could enter into the accords with them (or, to put it cynically, with Faqir Mohammed dead they wouldn’t know who they were supposed to surrender to). However, Mohammed survived. He apparently felt so confident in his safety that he gave an interview to NBC News at the scene near the blasted school, and also attended — and spoke at — the funeral for the 80 who died in the strike.

At this point, the Bajur Accords are on hold. While we will probably see some payback from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, my source noted that there’s not a whole lot more they can do: these groups tried to kill Musharraf less than a month ago, and are already carrying out terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

The agreement reached with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in North Waziristan, while hailed at the time by the US State Department and Musharraf as a victory against terrorism has actually proved to be an unmitigated disaster for NATO forces in Afghanistan. Taliban fighters poured across the undefended Pakistani border into Afghanistan by the hundreds. Recent battles between NATO and the terrorists have taken place at the battalion level with the Taliban attacking with small arms as well as rocket propelled grenades and mortars. While several hundred Taliban fighters were killed in these battles, both the numbers of attackers and the quality of their weaponry underscores the fact that Musharraf’s efforts to rein in al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan have been an utter and complete failure.

Musharraf probably realized this from the outset of his negotiations with the Taliban in Waziristan (now referred to as “Talibanistan” by locals). And he couldn’t have been deaf to the repeated calls by NATO commanders in Afghanistan that he do more to seal the border areas where Islamic militants infiltrate and carry out attacks against NATO and Afghan civilians. Why then the “terrorist outreach” program with the pro-Taliban tribes in Bajur?

As was the case in North Waziristan, Musharraf has simply accepted the reality that he cannot do as Washington wishes and fight the growing extremist elements that threaten his hold on power with any kind of consistency or fervor. Anti-western feelings have become a powerful political force in Pakistan and any move by Musharraf that could be seen as getting closer to Washington or doing America’s bidding places his rule in jeopardy. His alliance with the religious parties in Parliament as well as his relationship with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has made any bold military moves against al-Qaeda or the Taliban nearly impossible.

Hence, his negotiations in Bajur should be as one more indication that Musharraf sees the temporary appeasement of the Taliban as his only “out.” There are indications that he did not follow through entirely with conditions he negotiated with the terrorists in North Waziristan - specifically, he refused to release about 200 al-Qaeda operatives named in the treaty. This led to an attempt on the President’s life earlier this month. While it is unlikely that the strike against the madrassa in Bajur is connected directly to the assassination attempt, the strike nevertheless sent a message to the Taliban that Musharraf was not entirely a free agent; that he must also deal with Washington and their allies in Afghanistan.

And Musharraf’s relationship with Washington is becoming more and more problematic for both sides as time goes on. The resurgence of the Taliban, buoyed by funds from Afghanistan’s record opium crop last year, has meant that large swaths of Pakistani territory have been co-opted by the terrorists. Wherever the Taliban gains control, Pakistani sovereignty disappears. Musher initially tried using the military to clamp down in the tribal areas but found to his dismay that the Taliban fighters were both too elusive and supported by too many tribal leaders for his soldiers to make a real dent in the terrorist’s control of the region. Recognizing this, Musharraf has signed these agreements in North and South Waziristan as well as negotiated in Bajur as a means to survive. Washington may not like it. But it is, for all practical purposes, Musharraf’s only play.

Despite Musharraf’s attempt to play both ends against the middle in his efforts to appease his enemies as well as his benefactors in Washington, there really is nothing that can be done to change the strategic situation in favor of the west. Too many hands are raised against against him for any kind of dramatic reversal of policy to be in the offing. This analysis gives a pretty good summary of Musharraf’s perilous situation:

He is a difficult subject to interpret. He has at various times been a declared supporter of the Taliban, a committed enthusiast for the war on terror, a militarist, a peacemaker, a defender of liberty and a dictator. If that sounds an incoherent career, just look at the chaotic situation in which he operates and much of it becomes self-explanatory.

Like all military rulers, Musharraf has, first and foremost, to placate the armed forces on which his power depends. He has also had to make (unkept) promises to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, a coalition of Muslim, pro-Taliban parties. Then, in the broader perspective, he needs to keep the United States and its allies happy, playing the role of a zealous warrior against terror and jihad. It is a challenge at which an Italian Renaissance prince of the Machiavelli school might have balked.

The Predator strike may have been a way for the US to go over Musharraf’s head while giving the Pakistani President “plausible deniability” so that a popular uprising against his rule could be avoided. At the same time, it is would be a huge mistake to try and undermine Musharraf’s rule. Simply put, there is no one else in Pakistan who could cooperate with the US the way that Musharraf can. Anyone on the horizon who would take control in a coup that ousted the President would almost certainly be anti-western in their outlook and perhaps even ally themselves with the Taliban. And in a country that sports 60 nuclear weapons, it would be hard to come up with a more catastrophic scenario than that.

Instead, we must work to strengthen Musharraf’s hand where we can and pay lip service to his efforts to appease the Taliban in the tribal areas. An unsatisfying policy to be sure. But the alternatives are just too horrible to contemplate.