Something Dumb this way Comes

Hold on to your hats, people. In yesterday's Buffalo News, Mary Kunz delivered a love letter to President Bush.

It's one of the most stupid and trite things I've read in the News ... since yesterday's "My View," which probably took a hard-hitting, controversial opinion regarding kittens being nice, or mean people being mean, or that a sunny day is happier than a cloudy one.

So, let's begin. My comments are in red.:

A statement of belief in Bush 10/5/2004 By MARY KUNZ How sweet it is, to be able to mouth off to your boss.

Or your ex-boss, anyway.

I'm talking about Murray Light, the former editor of The Buffalo News. He hired me 11 years ago, and I always liked that about him (along with his knowledge of what makes a good martini).

But for months now, I've had to weather his attacks on President Bush. One column bore the headline "Bush popularity hard to understand."

And guess what? Now, I can speak up.

If Bush's popularity is hard to understand - well, I'll explain it. The best way to do this might be by explaining what makes many Republicans like myself tick. This Buffalo gal believes that:

• Fundamental to the human spirit is a yearning for freedom. Given the choice, people in Iraq, though they've never known freedom, will embrace it. Democracy is the greatest gift America can offer the world. I flatly reject the argument that cultural relativism gives tyranny a pass.

That's a very nice sentiment, Mary, but where does it end? There are a great many countries around the world that are saddled with brutal dictatorships. From North Korea with its megalomaniacal, Stalinist monarch to the Arab fascism of Syria - to whom shall America next offer the gift of democracy? Which dictatorship is next on the list for overthrowin'?

• Bush has a real war plan. It's easy for his opponent, John Kerry, to say, had he been president on Sept. 11, 2001, that he would have done everything differently. As Patti LuPone puts it, "Coulda, woulda, shoulda."

What plan are you talking about? Letting Afghan warlords go after bin Laden in Tora Bora? Agreeing to a cease-fire so bin Laden and his crew could escape? Or are you talking about Iraq? Quite honestly, I don't even get what point you're making here: are you talking about what Bush actually did on 9/11 - do you mean Kerry wouldn't have spent seven minutes reading "The Pet Goat" to five-year-olds after being informed that the country is under attack?

• I say, right war, right place, right time. In the short term, Bush's plan takes the war to the enemy so we don't have to fight them here at home. In the long term, a free Iraq will weaken its totalitarian neighbors. It will be much harder for Arab nations harboring terrorists to operate with a U.S. ally on their borders. Bush believes the democratization of these tyrannical states will be the stabilizing force that brings a peaceful future for our children.

Typical Republican ignorant-speak. Right war? Right place? Afghanistan was the right war in the right place at the right time. And then we diverted a great deal of our military capability for the build-up to invade Iraq.

Mary subscribes to the utopian vision of the AEI neoconservatives - that a democratic Iraq will spark a domino effect, bringing about a democratic enlightenment throughout the Middle East. Has Israel become safer because Saddam is gone, or because of the security fence? The latter.

Countries next door to US-friendly democracies find it harder to harbor terrorists? Realllllyy? Afghanistan (although not Arab) seemed to have absolutely no problem harboring terrorists, despite having US allies Pakistan and India right next door. Our NATO ally Turkey - a democracy being considered for EU membership - sits next door to Iran and Syria, and they seem to have a bit of a reputation for ...um...harboring terrorists, IIRC.

Saddam Hussein was a regional threat that had been contained by the US and its allies for over ten years. What was it about Saddam Hussein that made him any more a threat than, say, Kim il-Sung? We misused our military to test out a neocon theory - that the US could run over Hussein, install a democracy, and that we'd be greeted as liberators, and the whole thing could be done with a minimum of troops in a matter of months. Oh, how devastatingly wrong we were.

Meanwhile, Kim il-Sung's got nukes.

• Bush is realistic. In Thursday's debate, Kerry relished proclaiming that Osama bin Laden, and not Saddam Hussein, attacked us. True, but that doesn't mean bin Laden is our only enemy. In action movies, civilization is saved by offing one mega-villain. Reality, though, is different. Al-Qaida is designed to be fail-safe, like the Internet - decentralized, redundant, tough to eradicate. Islamic fundamentalists have declared a take-no-prisoners holy war against the United States. They won't be stopped by diplomacy, sensitivity or a six-month war. The Democrats' politicization of the Iraq war shows some of them missed the 9/11 wake-up call and others have a callous disregard for our security. We need real resolve.

Resolve? Bush makes a snap decision, which turns out to be dramatically wrong, and then refuses to change his mind, given the changing situation on the ground - that's resolve? I'll take flip-flopping, please.

Bush supporters love to lump Saddam in with al Qaeda. Arguing back at them that one had nothing to do with the other is futile. 9/11 changed stuff, yes. It awakened us to the reality that terrorists can and will attack us on our soil in a devastating way. And the Bush administration chose to invade...Iraq. Iraq? Why not Syria? Why not Iran? I mean, both of those countries pose and equal, if not greater, threat to the US than Iraq did. Iraq was a crippled, third world fascist dictatorship that had undergone international sanctions for years.

In 2003, Bush said Hussein was a growing threat due to his WMDs.

The UN sent in weapons inspectors. These 200-or-so people were given about 6 months, and found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. The Bush administration and the right-wing echo chamber called Blix and his team Saddam lackeys.

100,000 + US troops have occupied (more or less) all of Iraq for 1 1/2 years. They have found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

So, over 1,000 Americans have died to confirm what we already knew? Is that it?

In fact, just today, our own weapons inspectors have confirmed not only that Iraq had no WMDs, but that Iraq was a DIMINISHING THREAT. Not gathering, not growing, and certainly not imminent.

When Bush was asking Congress for the resolution to use force to disarm Hussein of his WMDs, he said it was a vote for peace. Now he accuses Kerry, who voted for the resolution, of voting for war. (Flip-flop!)

Ultimately, the war was wholly unnecessary because Iraq had already disarmed - it had no WMDs. None. Zero. Zip.

Even Bush & Cheney knew that you had to pass a "global test" before you go invading a sovereign nation, no matter how much you hate it. It has to be legitimate. Otherwise, you just look like expansionists. For them, the global test consisted of Saddam Hussein's supposed violation of Security Council resolutions regarding WMDs.

Look, Mary, all of us - even Kerry and Edwards - agree that terrorists and terrorism (by no means a new phenomenon) are bad. And we should go after them. But there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. George Bush had chosen the most wrong of the wrongest wrong ways.

• Kerry lacks that resolve. He has said we have to win in Iraq but has often contradicted himself for political expediency and said the war has been a mistake.

The war was a mistake, but, nevertheless, we must win it. How is that contradictory? Should Kerry be rooting for us to LOSE our mistaken war?

• Bush believes 35 percent is the highest income tax rate anyone should pay. Me too. Income taxes weren't originally intended to redistribute wealth or punish achievement but to fund necessary government services.

And more and more, the middle class is being told to shoulder the burden of those necessary government services, while the richest 1% keep getting tax breaks. Call that class warfare if you want, but it's patently unfair. You can still pay your bills if you're taxed at 35% of $1,000,000. It's a bit harder if you're taxed at 25% of $50,000. Especially with runaway medical costs, exorbitant gas & heating bills, etc.

• Most feel-good social programs championed by Democrats have harmed many people. While arguably a worthy experiment, they've condemned generations to a cycle of poverty, dependence and shame while depriving society's weakest members.

Mary, are you friggin kidding me? We passed welfare reform almost 10 years ago. Do you propose that we do away with food stamps so people go hungry, or opt to begging or stealing? Or is it housing subsidies that we need to get rid of, so the people who can't get a job because of rampant outsourcing are homeless, too! Homeless, jobless & food-less. A GOP trifecta. At least they won't have to pay income taxes, lucky ducks.

If you have specific programs that you think are extravagant, say so. Instead, you indict the entirety of our social welfare system.

• I can't stand the way Democrats patronize people with incentives not to succeed in order to perpetuate an underclass voting constituency. John Edwards' "Two Americas" is a tired trick to divide America and rally the poor against the rich, encouraging the poor to stay poor and voting Democratic.

No. If you don't get the point of Edwards' "two Americas" you don't deserve a column. The wealthiest Americans are very fortunate to have good health care; the poorest have either Medicaid (one of those feel-good liberal programs that make harm people, according to Mary). Seniors have Medicare. What about the working poor? The McDonald's worker and the retail worker? They have nothing but the Emergency room & collection calls.

The point Edwards is making isn't that we need to tear down the upper echelon, but that we need to improve the fortunes of the less-fortunate by making their busy, complicated lives somewhat easier to manage.

Or we can just kill head-start. It's up to you, America.

• I like Bush, personally. You know where he stands. I respect his convictions, even the few I don't share. I get a kick out of that schoolboy giggle: "My opponent could spend 90 minutes debating with himself." And I like how he doesn't hide what he's feeling. Yes, he looked tired at Thursday's debate. Kerry had spent the day getting a manicure and a tan. Bush had to work.

Kerry spent the day preparing to take on the leader of the free world in a debate. Bush visited a site of hurricane damage. Ha ha. Bush can crack a joke.

Bush IS a joke. That schoolboy giggle? Too bad he didn't pay more attention in school.

He can't defend his four-year record. He can only attack his opponent. Bush says Kerry's a flip-flopper? So's Bush. So's Cheney.

Bush was against the 9/11 commission before he was for it.

Bush was against creating a Dept of Homeland Security before he was for it.

Bush was against campaign finance reform before he signed it. And now he doesn't like it so much...again.

Cheney was for lifting sanctions on Iran before he was against it.

Cheney was for higher gas prices before he was against them (or is he?)

Cheney was for abolition of the Apache helicopter system before he was against it.

• The debate's first question was: "Who can best prevent another 9/11?" Bush can. He already has.

When? How? What's the evidence for that statement?

Mary...just tell me one thing.

Who, exactly, was President on 9/10/01?

That's what I thought.