Friday Face-Off

FACE-OFF: n. 1. A method of starting play in ice hockey by dropping the puck between two opposing players. 2. A confrontation.



The French statesman, Talleyrand, is credited with the saying "from the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step." How appropriate that the candidate who would seek approval from the French before taking action to protect this great land took that step this week.



ITEM 1: The Al QaQaa Weapons Facility (c'mon, I know that more than one of you were tickled at this name) entered the public domain with a phenomenal chain of title. Let's see...the IAEA (eeei, eeei, yo) floats a story to 60 Minutes about 377 tons of high-quality explosives done gone! Horrors!! 60 Minutes loves it and faster than you can say "forged memo" prepares a hit piece to run day after tomorrow. Well, daggumit, The New York Times, even without the services of Jason Blair, breaks the story on Monday and shazaam we got ourselves a scandal!!! Whoo hee, we're gonna get that Bush fella one way or another!! The political arm of Tne New York Times, jfk's campaign, has an ad in the can by sundown accusing our President and our forces on the ground of neglligence. THIS was the aforementioned step.



First the logic test...remember your basic syllogisms, a = b, b = c, therefore a = c? OK, here we go:

a. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

b. You fight wars to prevent the spread of wmd's.

c. "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place."

BUT,

d. Well these weapons WERE highly destructive - some could be used as nuclear fuses! AND

e. W just walked past them out there in the desert and didn't do anything SO,

f. We should have gone to war AND

g. We didn't go to war soon enough OR

h. We didn't go to war hard enough ? OR...

i. Teacher, I need help, I'm confused....



Maybe that's what sophisticated people call "nuanced." But wait, it gets better!



ITEM 2: The Pattern:

Why do they hate us so? Why do they attack the very institutions that we hold dear, strike at our heartland, challenge our values around the world? Why at every turn do they attempt to thwart our foreign policy? "Who, "you ask, "the Islamic terrorists?"



No, the liberal democrats!



Vietnam:

jfk comes back from Vietnam, shamelessly castigates our troops and roots for the enemy.

Nicaragua:

jfk comes back from visiting Danny Ortega, shamelessly castigates our administration and roots for the enemy.

Gulf War I:

jfk votes against the war, shamelessly castigates our President in a time of hot war giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Today:

jfk votes for and against the war, shamelessly castigates our President and our troops in a time of war and gives aid and comfort to the enemy.



In each of the above scenarios, jfk reached his conclusions with fraudulent data and an attitude whose starting point is the US is wrong, In this most recent dust up, he takes the word of a politically charged UN agency over the voluminous evidence of our own forces.



jfk loves to make the statement that he would not "rush to war" and that our coalition fighting in Iraq is the coalition of the "bribed and extorted." In an executive decision, jfk rushed to war choosing his allies to be the United Nations NOT the United States.



ITEM 3: THE WEAPONS WEREN'T THERE!

A day later, the EEIEEEIO says maybe it was only 3 tons...not 377. Oops! Well, I'm sure the NYT will withdraw their story and jfk will pull his ad. NOPE! They obviously drank from the same Kool Aide pitcher. They push the attack with a very knowledgeable response: "were too!"



OKAY, soldiers from the 101st Airborne then say, "Um, we were there, we didn't see any." The Pentagon releases satellite imaging showing large equipment movers in front of the depot. And now, mid-day today a 3rd Infantry Division Major comes forward explaining that the reason the weapons are gone is because he blew them up! "Blowed up, Sir!" (Think "Stripes")



I think it was Mark Twain who once said: "against a diseased imagination demonstration goes for nothing," What would he say about the "steps" Monsieur Kerhee has taken this week?



ITEM 5: CALLING IT!

A number of you have written me and asked who I think is going to win. Here are my odds:



10% chance jfk wins it outright. He simply has too many mountains to climb and few options left on the Electoral map puzzle.

10% chance jfk wins it "funny." Fraudulent registrations in critical areas coupled with attorneys at the ready and pre-emptive legal motions AND false accusations of race baiting etc. etc.

30% chance jfk or W win it through litigation. God help us. As one wag put it, the lawyers could succeed in making us the laughing stock of Venezuela. But anytime you go into a court, you don't ever really know what's going to happen.

30% chance W wins it close. Close popular vote, close electoral vote, but enough of a margin in enough states that jfk decides not to push it into the courts.

20% chance W wins it in a blow-out. There's some funky stuff happening out there that the polls might not be picking up. Cheney heading to Hawaii? W in New Hampshire? jfk pulling ads in Florida and Colorado? Evangelical Christians registering in record numbers? College kids breaking for W? I sniff it in the wind and it reminds me a little of Reagan's first victory. It broke late and hard for him and the toothy wonder from Georgia was gone!



Net net - 65% chance for W, 35% for jfk.



If you haven't already, get out there and vote! The one silver lining in all this animosity is this could be a record percentage of the population participating in this election. As long as the vote is uncorrupted, that can only benefit our people.