Posted on 10/26/2004 7:48:12 PM PDT by MplsSteve
Sorry if this post fall into the Vanity category...but I wanna get some Freeper intake on this.
Hugh Hewitt seems to believe that the missing explosive story (in Iraq) is gonna end up being a negative for Kerry.
He suggests that Kerry sullied the reputations of our generals and soldiers by inferring that incompetence (sp?) played a part in this.
Hewitt seems to believe that the American voter will not take this well and that it could increase Bush's poll numbers.
I'm not so sure given the MSM's inability to properly cover a story as well as a fair segment of the American public who'll believe anything the MSM tells them.
Opinions anyone?
For what it's worth, Dick Morris said the same thing and was adamant about it.
When did Morris say that?
Sorry if this post fall into the Vanity category...but I wanna get some Freeper intake on this.
Hugh Hewitt seems to believe that the missing explosive story (in Iraq) is gonna end up being a negative for Kerry.
TRUE
He suggests that Kerry sullied the reputations of our generals and soldiers by inferring that incompetence (sp?) played a part in this.
TRUE. KERRY SHOWED HIS *INCOMPETENCE* - HE WAS GIVEN A BAD INTELLIGENCE REPORT AND STATED SOMETHING HE DOESNT REALLY KNOW TO BE TRUE.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HOWARD DEAD ACCUSED BUSH OF DOING. DEAN SAID "BUSH LIED".
WELL, NOW. THEN "KERRY LIED" TODAY.
Hewitt seems to believe that the American voter will not take this well and that it could increase Bush's poll numbers.
IT DEPENDS. WILL WE BE ABLE MAKE THE MSM BACKTRACK ON THIS?
I'm not so sure given the MSM's inability to properly cover a story as well as a fair segment of the American public who'll believe anything the MSM tells them.
Opinions anyone?
WE CAN FORCE THE ISSUE ONE WAY: WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, CONTACT THE MEDIA, RAISE A STINK *NOW*.
This is a living example of the "Global Test" in action.
Kerry has sided with a U.N. flunkie trying to protect his cushy job against the word of U.S. soldiers in effect by saying they "lost" the ammo.
Even worse is the implication that they allowed 40 some-odd trucks to just come in and load a known explosive.
That part, however, is par for the course for Kerry, ever since returning from Nam, he's found it easier to criticize U.S. involvement than praise it. The facts about HMX and what state it was in, IAEA should be able to answer that issue, have not been discussed at all.
You can go broke overestimating Hugh's political savvy. He called California for Bush on election eve 2000 with as much confidence as he currently predicts a 40 state Bush victory.
He is the same person who thought that the first debate was a disaster for Kerry.
I'd rather have him on our side than the other side, but would never count on his predictions coming true.
It'll hurt Kerry only assuming two things:
1) The Bush campaign makes a counter ad.
2) Some new revelation, perhaps of coordination between NYT and KE04, occurs.
If not, this will have minimal impact either way. I never thought it was a "big" deal for Bush anyway, because most people don't personally blame the president for things that go on in Iraq, especially 18 months ago.
If anything, it could have some good impact for Bush, just the story alone. I mean come on. We're talking about highly explosive material disappearing from Iraq. Most people are gonna say "oh, so they were pretty dangerous."
I agree this will be the case as well. I think people will view this as an attack on the military and that won't sit well.
---When did Morris say that?---
At the same time O'Reilly was poo-pooing it.
This is a blatant shot across the bow of the 101st.
Whenever I'm feeling down about Bush's chances in the election I read Hugh. It's kind of like coming home after a hard day at work and having a stiff drink - everything seems better. Problem is, though, Hugh has his own biases, and while his writing makes me feel better, like the warm buzz I get after the drink it doesn't always reflect the reality of the situation.
Everyone is wondering why nothing has been forthcoming from the Aministration on this. Maybe they are letting all of us do the work for them... and letting Kerry hang out there twisting in the wind.
It's a double negative for Kerry. Yes, many will see his attacks as being on the military. Secondly, it's becoming more and more obvious that these explosives weren't even there when the US troops arrived. It's makes Kerry look pathetically desparate. Which of course he is.
Just to clarify, I do agree that what Kerry and the democrats are doing on this issue is disgraceful, but I don't think that the public will take it as an afront to the troops. The public will see it as an attack on Bush. I think that Hugh is reaching a bit too far on this one.
And what was o'Reilly poo-pooing?
However, if his lies go unchallenged and are believed to be true, Bush can be hurt.
---And what was o'Reilly poo-pooing?---
The whole notion that this story was a negative for Kerry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.