Varifrank: NY Times Backs Bush Reasons For Iraq

NY Times Backs Bush Reasons For Iraq

So the big watercooler talk this morning is about the weapons in Iraq that went missing. Apparently, it's all Bushs fault. No mention of the literally hundred of tons of explosives that have been captured and destroyed. Another inconvienent fact.

Well, color me happy to see that the NY Times now understands why we went into Iraq. It seems they now agree with me that Iraqi assets could be used by terrorists. It's too bad they didn't get onboard sooner and back the president and his reasoning for war in Iraq.

Oh - and on the Bill Clinton on the stump for Kerry Story. Don't you think this is the biggest subliminal campaign signal in history? A Post-op Bill Clinton is still more exciting than a top of his game Lycra wearing John Kerry. (UPDATE: Why is a Democrat campaigning in territory he should own outright? You know the answer. You can't be the 'comeback kid' unles you already acknowledge that you are losing. ( notice how often Clinton talks about himself and how often he talks about Kerry?)

And why is Michigan in suddenly in play? Ask John Kerry if he's ever heard of Hamtramck. Ask him if he ever heard that its the center of Polish life in the upper midwest. Ask him what the primary social structure is of the people of Hamtramck ( here's a clue Mr. Kerry - its that big building with a cross on the top).

Then ask him what his position is on this.

Posted @ October 25, 2004 09:47 AM | Current Events

I am in Detroit, MI.
I am thrilled that it is close here.

The majority of the state is pro-gun.
But the population centers - Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, Lansing - are huge union areas.
The really great thing is that I have met lots of those union members who are "quietly" supporting W.
They have to - Fn wants to increase CAFE (auto mileage requirements). That would destroy this state.

Posted by: _Jon at October 25, 2004 02:12 PM