The morning after the morning after

By Aussiegirl

OK -- are we finished yet? With the whining and the gnashing of teeth? Finished listening to the punditocracy telling us that Kerry somehow "won" that debate because he bloviated, insulted, criticized, but otherwise said nothing of substance? Can someone who is so convinced that Kerry "won" that debate, please point to ONE salient point that he made? ONE plan that he put forward that made anyone change their minds? ONE new idea? One constructive suggestion as to how to proceed? NO?? So I ask the obvious question. How is it that Kerry won the debate?

I suppose he did. His manicure was definitely better, and it greatly enhanced his annoying and distracting habit of counting off his various "points" by touching one long finger of one hand to another very long bony finger of another hand. And by gesturing robotically and mechanically in the air. I suppose he had a better haircut, but that is a matter of opinion, as his hair is too "big" by current standards of men's fashion, and harkens back to his halcion heydeys of the 60's and 70's. He's taller. So is a giraffe. He drones. While Bush speaks directly and candidly. He looked at Jim Lehrer and called him "Jim". All good friends here, ya know. While Bush looked into the camera and connected with "people" -- oh yeah -- them -- the audience -- us -- out here -- the JURY!

Yup -- Kerry definitely won. What did he say? Does anyone remember? I remember "global test". Oh yes, Bush DID pounce on that, and that was at the end of the debate, so it gets remembered. Kerry called for a "summit". Wow -- what an idea. I'm sure Americans have been slavering for a President who calls for "summits". The very word is antiquated and reminds us that Kerry is still living in the 60's and 70's, his heart and mind are still back in Vietnam. How many times did he mention his service? At least 4 times by my count, but by then my eyes had glazed over and I had lost count. Summits remind us of that world we once lived in. An almost cozy and safe world when there were two superpowers and they held each other off with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union, for all its despotism, still had a sense of self-preservation and could be called to something we used to call a "summit".

But who do we have a "summit" with now? Bin Laden? Last I heard he was in his mountain redoubt somewhere in Pakistan (not Afghanistan, by the way). Saddam? Well, he's easy to find. He's in a jail cell in Baghdad. But hardly in a position to come to the table. Sadr? He's too busy trying to dodge American bombs and bullets to have the time to properly prepare himself for a "summit". So -- I think we have dispensed with that stupid notion.

But I suppose what Kerry REALLY means is a summit with France and Germany. Oh yes. He no doubt will speak French to the French, and perhaps Therayza also learned some German along with all the Romance languages she speaks so eloquently. If not, the common language of leftism, defeatism, appeasement and hauteur should carry them through to the champagne and brie course very nicely (throw in some wienerschnitzel for the krauts and some lager).

At this mythical summit Kerry will do two things. He will lay out what an unmitigated disaster and quagmire and distraction is Iraq. And then he will ask the French and the Germans to commit thousands of troops to take the place of all the Americans he will be withdrawing from this quagmire. I think that sounds like a winning proposition. Don't you?

The next order of business will be to kill the nuclear bunker buster bomb. Kerry is outraged -- was his term -- or something equally ludicrous -- that that completely unreliable and warmongering power known as the United States of America would be in possession of such a dangerous weapon of nuclear proliferation. Did you miss that? That came at the end. When asked what he was most worried about, Monsieur Kerry responded that it was "nuclear proliferation". And then he hastened to add, it was not rogue nations and terrorists having access to nuclear weapons that frightened him, and disturbed his watches of the night while he relived those horrific scenes in the fetid jungles and swamps of Cambodia, that were seared, SEARED in his memory. No, what kept him awake night after night was the prospect of the United States possessing the ability to destroy the nuclear facilities and other buried WMD facilities of the Axis of Evil nations like Iran and North Korea.

And finally, we have the bada-bing moment of the night!!! The moment when the three cherries stopped spinning in the slot machine and lined up beautifully, spilling coins and with lights flashing and bells and whistles going off. Yes, ladies and gentlemen -- we have -- the "global test". The test which Kerry has promised to apply faithfully and to defend with all his might -- that America shall NEVER act pre-emptively to protect its self-interest and security WITHOUT A GLOBAL TEST OF APPROVAL. Need this even be elaborated upon? How does this work exactly? Oh, I get it. The UN gets to decide. That corrupt, feckless bastion of dictators, autocrats and other assorted felons and thugs who like to parade around in expensive suits and feed out of the trough of the world's misery and poverty while presiding over resolution after resolution condemning the United States and Israel. THAT UN!! Nuff said.

So Kerry won the debate. Hands down. Bush looked tired, and weak and simply spoke the truth movingly and eloquently. He reiterated his plan. He pointed out the inconsistencies and contradictions and impossibilites of Kerry's "ideas". He talked about realities. He talked about our troops. He talked about comforting grieving widows and children, and of the burdens that being Commander in Chief place on a single human being. How hard it is to look in the face of a widow and comfort her. But he could tell her with clear conscience and a truthful heart and deep conviction of faith that her husband had died for something noble and good. And that his sacrifice was not in vain.

And he looked peeved and exasperated. Yes, the President is a human being, at least some Presidents are. And President Bush has a plan. And we don't have to go to his website to learn the Four Points of same. And he has a vision, rather than negativity, pessimism and grandiose posturing. And he suffers and gets tired and shows emotion.

So yes, I'll agree with you. Kerry won the debate. Go ahead. What exactly did he say or propose that made one jot of sense? But he said it better, you will say. Bush missed some opportunities. And he appeared tired and distracted and bored. Who wouldn't be? I was bored out of my skull 20 minutes into the debate and I'm a junky for this sort of thing.

But, it's the morning after the morning after, and we are all calmer now. And Kerry has resumed his normal clammy pallor, after waxing orange and then some shade in-between on the night of the debate. The manicure is a bit scruffed, the hair a bit muffed, the lines a bit tired, the Botox wearing off.

But our President is still standing, battle scarred and bruised, but unbowed. And long may he preside, over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Anyone who was watching to see if Kerry presented a cogent and coherent and sensible alternative plan to what President Bush is already doing, was sorely disappointed.

But we will remember -- "global test", "summit", "nuclear bunker buster".

These little self-inflicted wounds will start to bleed, and will become a full-blown hemorrhage by the time election time rolls around.

Bottom line. It was Kerry who missed an opportunity.

For Bush, it was just another day of getting the job done and getting on with the business of running the country and leading.