The Debate (cont.)

Great stuff on James Lileks' Bleats:

But mostly I hate the debates because I simply cannot abide hearing certain statements I’ve been hearing over, and over, and over again. I can’t take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin’nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galactic Order of the Belgian Dominion? Did we p*** off the Vulcans? Who? If we mean “France and Germany,” then please explain to me why the reluctant participation of these two countries somehow bestows the magic kiss of legitimacy. They want in? Fine. They don’t? Fine. At this point mooning over France is like being that sophomore loser dorm pal who spent his dateless weekends telling his loser roommate about a high school sweetheart who stood him up for the prom. Give it up. Move on.

Perhaps the “ally” is that big blue wobbly mass known as the UN, that paragon of moral clarity, that conscience of the globe. You want to really anger a UN official? Tow his car. Short of that you can get away with anything. (Sudan is on the human rights commission, to cite a prominent and amusing detail. It’s like putting Tony Soprano on the New Jersey Waste Management Regulation Board.) I don’t worry that the UN is angry with us. I’d be worried if they weren’t. And I find it interesting that someone who would complain about outsourcing peevishly notes that we hired HALLIBURTON to do the work instead of throwing buckets of billions to French and German contractors who sold them the jets and built the bunkers.

The SCSU Scholars quote Homer's The Iliad. It is almost spooky how much that the Trojans are like modern day Europe, and their attackers like radical Islam:

The repeated appeals to accept ransom are not only indicative of Troy's immense wealth, they are also a reminder of Trojan attitudes: they believe, typical of rich, civilized cities, that wealth can always buy a solution, and the illusion that civilized ways of warfare -- quarter for disarmed men or men who surrender, ransom and exchange of prisoners -- are laws as valid and universal as the laws under which their own civilization lives. Inside Troy the manners of civilized life are preserved; there are restraints on anger, there is courtesy to opponents, kindness to the weak -- things that have no place in the armed camp on the shore. ...

Unfortunately for Troy, the Trojans have the defects of their qualities: they are not so much at home in the grim business of war as their opponents.

Great comment by mitch on Shot In Dark:

Let's see - Kerry is angry because we are "nationbuilding" in Iraq, but also angry because we let the Afghans do their own nationbuilding.

We're too "unilateral" in Iraq, but not unilateral enough in Korea?

Bush is a unilateralist clod, but Kerry insults the nations that are helping?

Shot In The Dark had a good post about who 'won' the debate:

I think there are two ways of reacting to these debates - call them "Two Americas".

One America is on the morning talk shows, and most of them thought Kerry won. That America took debate in high school, and admires things like polished prose and smooth delivery. They focused on trivia - Bush's occasional stammer, his facial expressions, that sort of thing.

Another America - one I live in - saw him articulate a baker's dozen positions on the war, on pre-emption, on homeland security. They saw him cut Allawi loose, and insult Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan, South Korea and every other nation that has troops in Iraq. They saw him going wobbly on the war; they saw him rant about how he'd finish the job, and then contradict himself. If they were like me, they saw him put a relatively smooth face on equivocation.

Sitting at the Undisclosed Location last night, I noticed something interesting; the higher up the wonkery chain you went (John Hinderaker, John LaPlante, King Banaian), the more pessimistic they were. The farther down the scale of political erudition you went - and I count myself in that group - the more enthusiastic about Bush people seemed.

I'm involved in an email discussion group populated mostly by lefties - generally fairly vapid, koolaid-drinking fever-swamp dwellers at that. I wrote a message that stated "So what if Bush stammered a bit? Most of the audience know that they'd stammer, themselves, in front of a crowd." Three or four of the usual suspects responded, almost simultaneously, "The President isn't 'most people'". They missed the point; "most people" are the electorate. "Most people" can tell the difference between substance and a good show. "Most people" don't care how someone talks when they're standing at a lectern, unless they're unbearably incompetent or pedantic - and neither Kerry nor Bush were.

"Most people" care about substance - and Bush had it. So did Kerry, but it was self-contradictory.

Captain's Quarters has a great post with commentery on and about the Washington Post and Times' editorials on the debate.