Posted on 09/21/2003 10:22:11 AM PDT by UnklGene
The truth is, if a Dwarf is somehow elected, I predict they will continue W's foreign policy. Will the truth - that W is a gifted Commander In Chief - make a difference?
The American electorate is just uninformed enough to fall for this. It worries me too.
ZING!
Steyn twists the knife so smoothly the victim may not even feel it.
This is obviously meant to recall how Katie Couric caused a flap when on three separate days she said, "The Gipper was an airhead." When challenged she tried to excuse it as the conclusion of the book she was discussing, but even the book's author objected, saying that he had only written that his *first* impression of Reagan was that he was an "apparent airhead", but that the author soon learned otherwise.
Look at it this way: What do you think that 69 percent of Americans make of Katie and Hillary marking the anniversary of 9/11 with a discussion on environmental regulatory compliance? Or previously sensible Democratic senators twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why their vote for war was in fact a principled vote against war? Or a four-star general whose general position is that real men don't have positions unless they're approved by the French? How many of that 69 percent want to trust their national security to these fellows? Or want them handling North Korea and Iran?I happen to think George W. Bush is vulnerable in 2004. But not on the war. As long as Democrats go on bleating and whining that it's all going horribly wrong, that 69 percent will dismiss them as pantywaists. It would make more sense to argue that Bush has done such a fabulous job on the war -- Afghanistan and Iraq liberated, the Taliban gone, al-Qaida gutted, Saddam on the run, etc. -- that the whole anti-terror thing has been pretty much wrapped up and we urgently need to get back to focusing on new federal standards for mandatory bicycling helmets, or whatever Democrats consider important these days.
November, 2004:
President Bush on the Road to Victory ...
Look at it this way: What do you think that 69 percent of Americans make of Katie and Hillary marking the anniversary of 9/11 with a discussion on environmental regulatory compliance? Or previously sensible Democratic senators twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why their vote for war was in fact a principled vote against war? Or a four-star general whose general position is that real men don't have positions unless they're approved by the French? How many of that 69 percent want to trust their national security to these fellows? Or want them handling North Korea and Iran?I happen to think George W. Bush is vulnerable in 2004. But not on the war. As long as Democrats go on bleating and whining that it's all going horribly wrong, that 69 percent will dismiss them as pantywaists. It would make more sense to argue that Bush has done such a fabulous job on the war -- Afghanistan and Iraq liberated, the Taliban gone, al-Qaida gutted, Saddam on the run, etc. -- that the whole anti-terror thing has been pretty much wrapped up and we urgently need to get back to focusing on new federal standards for mandatory bicycling helmets, or whatever Democrats consider important these days.
November, 2004:
President Bush on the Road to Victory ...
Ugh ! A double post. Sorry 'bout that ...
I guess to continue to analogy someone would have to say "I hope Hillary gets pregnant and has to drop out!"
As long as Democrats go on bleating and whining that it's all going horribly wrong, that 69 percent will dismiss them as pantywaists. It would make more sense to argue that Bush has done such a fabulous job on the war -- Afghanistan and Iraq liberated, the Taliban gone, al-Qaida gutted, Saddam on the run, etc. -- that the whole anti-terror thing has been pretty much wrapped up and we urgently need to get back to focusing on new federal standards for mandatory bicycling helmets, or whatever Democrats consider important these days.
My favorite has got to be when those NYC Jews threw all those toilet seats at her and she was hounded out of there. The look on her face was priceless.
Doing some digging for old Steyn articles regarding Afghanistan. I love Steyn's writing. But I recall him mocking the idea of a quagmire in Afghanistan back in the day. Here in this piece he seems to have declared victory in Afghanistan.
Well, aren't even Freepers now calling it a quagmire? What's the situation? I love Steyn's writing, but he does seem to be a neo-con, and he does seem to sometimes be the Larry Kudlow of foreign interventionism.
Things just go down the memory hole though, and no one remembers when someone was dead wrong about something.
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.