Politics Blog

Chris Matthews has made quite a few comments over the past 6 months or so about how incredible it is that polls show many Americans believing there was some connection between Saddam and al Qaeda or even Saddam and 9/11. He has even had a few guests on that have presented evidence that some connection quite possibly did exist. He listens to their arguments and then completely dismisses them. (At least I assume he listens. It really is hard to tell.)

For the past month at this site I have been asking that someone in the media please connect the dots. Stephen Hayes does just that in this Weekly Standard piece drawn from his book, The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America. I wonder when any of the network news magazines will devote a segment to cover Mr. Hayes’ book. Dick Clarke, Joe Wilson, and others have had their time, and Bill Clinton will be doing the rounds soon. Maybe they can squeeze in some time for Mr. Hayes sometime in late November.

In this American Spectator article , crushkerry.com founder, Patrick Hynes, argues that although Bush has been successful in painting Kerry as a waffler, it doesn’t really hurt him much with voters. I have thought about this a lot lately because so many of the Kerry jokes I hear on Leno and elsewhere sound exactly like the ones about Bill Clinton in the 1992 and 1996 election seasons. Of course, Bill Clinton won both of those elections, even after successfully being labeled a waffler. But in those years, there were not big, important issues like terrorism and war. I have been waiting for Bush-Cheney to make the connection between being a flip-flopper and how that would translate in the foreign policy arena. I feel certain they will do so eventually. I just hope they don’t wait too long.

Over the past month, both Republicans and Democrats have had occasion to read columns of dismay and woe, based on the polls numbers and their siren song of imminent disaster. While I have found polls to be interesting, I am well aware of their inability to do anything more than provide a signal for the moment. Yet, a category of discussion exists for these polls, all to itself, and there are companies who make a nice commission for themselves by pumping out these signals, the ostensibly vital signs of the campaign.

My personal pet peeve may be summed up in that familiar phrase,

Kate O’Beirne makes an excellent point at National Review about how much attention the media pays to the “villains and victims” and how little to the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan. (The Boston Herald editorial linked to below makes the same point about the Gore speech.) Read the entire O’Beirne piece to learn about those “whose stories of service could be recounted with Steven Seagal cast in the lead.”

Instapundit has a great sampling of reactions to the Gore speech. The following quote from the Boston Herald is posted there:

He never mentioned Nicholas Berg. Or Daniel Pearl. Or a single person killed in the World Trade Center. Nor did former Vice President Al Gore talk of any soldier by name who has given his life in Iraq. And he has the audacity to condemn the Bush administration for having “twisted values?'’

Gore spent the bulk of a speech before the liberal group MoveOn.org Wednesday bemoaning Abu Ghraib and denouncing President Bush’s departure from the “long successful strategy of containment.'’

Yes, the very same strategy that, under Gore’s leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders. . . .

And this man - who apparently has so much disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to lead it?

UPDATE: More on Gore speech here.

Chris Matthews has made quite a few comments over the past 6 months orso about how incredible it is that polls show many Americans believing there was some connection between Saddam and al Qaeda or even Saddam and 9/11. He has even had a few guests on that have presented evidence that some connection quite possibly did exist. He listens to their arguments and then completely dismisses them. (At least I assume he listens. It really is hard to tell.)

For the past month at this site I have been asking that someone in the media please connect the dots. Stephen Hayes does just that in this Weekly Standard piece drawn from his book, The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America. I wonder when any of the network news magazines will devote a segment to cover Mr. Hayes’ book. Dick Clarke, Joe Wilson, and others have had their time, and Bill Clinton will be doing the rounds soon. Maybe they can squeeze in some time for Mr. Hayes sometime in late November.

In this American Spectator article , crushkerry.com founder, Patrick Hynes, argues that although Bush has been successful in painting Kerry as a waffler, it doesn’t really hurt him much with voters. I have thought about this a lot lately because so many of the Kerry jokes I hear on Leno and elsewhere sound exactly like the ones about Bill Clinton in the 1992 and 1996 election seasons. Of course, Bill Clinton won both of those elections, even after successfully being labeled a waffler. But in those years, there were not big, important issues like terrorism and war. I have been waiting for Bush-Cheney to make the connection between being a flip-flopper and how that would translate in the foreign policy arena. I feel certain they will do so eventually. I just hope they don’t wait too long.

Over the past month, both Republicans and Democrats have had occasion to read columns of dismay and woe, based on the polls numbers and their siren song of imminent disaster. While I have found polls to be interesting, I am well aware of their inability to do anything more than provide a signal for the moment. Yet, a category of discussion exists for these polls, all to itself, and there are companies who make a nice commission for themselves by pumping out these signals, the ostensibly vital signs of the campaign.

My personal pet peeve may be summed up in that familiar phrase,

Kate O’Beirne makes an excellent point at National Review about how much attention the media pays to the “villains and victims” and how little to the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan. (The Boston Herald editorial linked to below makes the same point about the Gore speech.) Read the entire O’Beirne piece to learn about those “whose stories of service could be recounted with Steven Seagal cast in the lead.”

Instapundit has a great sampling of reactions to the Gore speech. The following quote from the Boston Herald is posted there:

He never mentioned Nicholas Berg. Or Daniel Pearl. Or a single person killed in the World Trade Center. Nor did former Vice President Al Gore talk of any soldier by name who has given his life in Iraq. And he has the audacity to condemn the Bush administration for having “twisted values?'’

Gore spent the bulk of a speech before the liberal group MoveOn.org Wednesday bemoaning Abu Ghraib and denouncing President Bush’s departure from the “long successful strategy of containment.'’

Yes, the very same strategy that, under Gore’s leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders. . . .

And this man - who apparently has so much disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to lead it?

UPDATE: More on Gore speech here.