November 01, 2004


Josh Marshall explains why the Democrats are a bad choice during a time of war:

One of the Democrats' greatest weaknesses: their vulnerability to getting knocked off stride by the rush of events, their tendency to fret that all is lost, almost to indulge in it, when the car hits a simple bump in the road.

Imagine how they’d react to a slightly more complex bump in the road. And here’s Mark Steyn on al-Qaqaa, another Democrat weakness:

For a year and a half, they've told us there were no WMD, Saddam wasn't a threat, and "BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!" about it all. I happen to disagree with that, but there's no doubt that simply by hammering it home all day and night the Dems had some effect. Now they're saying whoa, let's back up, yes, as it happens, these non-existent weapons that Bush lied about the non-threatening Saddam having he did, in fact, have -- and that fool Bush let the non-existent weapons get away.

Posted by Tim Blair at November 1, 2004 12:49 AM

Bush is a liar!

There were never WMDs.

The people of Faluja commited suicide. If anyone shows you a picture of a Mother and Baby killed by Saddam's Nerve Agents it is a LIE!

and remember Vote Democrat!

Posted by: MiketheMore at November 1, 2004 at 01:00 AM

American voters. Go here. Read this. Right now.

50 reasons

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 1, 2004 at 01:12 AM

richard mcenroe. My exact same reasons.

Posted by: Rebecca at November 1, 2004 at 02:00 AM

Good enough for me as well.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 1, 2004 at 02:48 AM

I'd be convinced by even one of those images. Thanks for linking, Richard.

Posted by: tim at November 1, 2004 at 02:53 AM

Kerry/Clinton vs Bush/Reagan/Churchill. The choice is so stark and so important at this time in history. My first vote was for a Democrat. Not this time!

Posted by: YoJimbo at November 1, 2004 at 06:36 AM

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. And there are some people you can't please any time.

Posted by: Rebecca at November 1, 2004 at 07:35 AM

Regarding the Mark Steyn column, I'm confused.

Isn't the stuff supposedly missing from Al Qaa Qaa (side note: what a cool place name!) just high explosives, rather than WMDs? I don't think anyone ever tried to deny that Saddam had explosives...

Posted by: Jorge at November 1, 2004 at 08:58 AM


Richard, I had no need to read the 50 reasons I could have made the list myself-I did anyway and now am reduced to red and weepy eyes before I go out for the day.
Someone once wrote that once one becomes a mother all children become as your own. The grief I feel for the loss of all those fine young people is not just as a far away bystander but as a mother of 2 beautiful people.
For them and for those that follow I would willingly do whatever it takes to see the harbingers of evil brought to the only justice they deserve.
I have not considered myself religious for a long time but I pray deeply, and daily that Mr Bush retains the PRESIDENCY OF THE USA.
I have but one desire before my days' end, and that is to see the America honoured and respected as she should be for the courage and will to stand up against all odds for what is right.
Bless you all and may we all continues to breathe the fresh crisp air of freedom.


Posted by: Rose at November 1, 2004 at 09:08 AM

Jorge, fission nuclear weapons require a "detonator" to initiate the explosion. The nuclear material has to reach critical mass before the fission process starts.

The original "Little Boy" design compressed the nuclear material into critical mass by carefully detonating high explosives packed around it. The design and composition for the explosives took a lot of R&D to get working.

The issue of the missing explosives is that this stuff is a potential component for nuclear weapons. So no one wanted to see it missing (if it really is missing). It's also nasty stuff for "improvised explosive devices" (IED) and car bombs.

On the other hand, this stuff is exactly what the Democrats have been crying about since day one of the invasion -- "There are no WMDs!" Here is proof that Hussein certainly had the capability to develop nuclear weapons, because he had a key component in his possession.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 1, 2004 at 12:25 PM