Let’s just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Ba’athists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council’s table. It’s a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush. - James Lileks

Oh, argh. I forgot to tape Apprentice. I'll have to wait till next week, darn it.

I gave blood in the morning, and Rich fixed lights at the church later, and he went to the annual report-dinner for Sharing God's Bounty in the evening, and we went looking for a couple of caches in the middle of the day.

I don't (yet) despise John Flipflop Kerry quite as much as King William the Rapist, but that's probably because I don't really know him yet. He's certainly working on being dethpicable. His post/anti-VietNam activities would be enough. I don't know, though, if I can stand another 9 months of that sepulchral undertaker face and voice. On the other hand, it's just as well the Donks think he's more electable than Pretty Boy. I suspect Edwards would be more formidable. I am going to be a single-issue voter this time, since I want the World's Cutest Grandchildren to grow up in a safer world.

This commenter says essentially the same thing:

I agree that Edwards, at least in theory, would appear to be the toughest opponent for Bush.

However, I still dread the idea of having to look at and stomach Kerry and his repulsive self for the entire election season.
Another Thought

Kerry should be wary of dredging up the past (Mark Steyn). Here's his 1971 testimony. The truth about Hanoi Jane. (I especially despise the slips-of-paper story which turns out to be untrue, but there's plenty of true stuff in there to hate.)

Mark Steyn:

By contrast, the Kerry narrative is almost impenetrable. If Vietnam bitterly divided a nation, split communities, tore apart families, etc, etc, Sen Kerry somehow managed to wind up on both sides of the fence: in the 1960s, he was John Wayne taking out the gooks in 'Nam; in the 1970s, he was Hanoi Jane Fonda, leading the protest movement; now, after two decades in Congress opposing every new weapons system for America's military, he's campaigning like Bob Hope on a USO tour flanked by wall-to-wall veterans. What story accounts for Senator Flip-Flop these past 40 years? If character is the issue, Bush can relax. And, if doing your bit for national security is the issue, then John Kerry's been Awol for two decades.

The Facts Could Kill Us, says Daniel Henninger. But what we have is the AP and their "reporting."

"John Kerry is Gray Davis on stilts." Or, as I heard on the radio, "the man who put the grave in gravitas."

John Kerry and Iran.

Michael Duff:

I don't really like the Bush Doctrine, okay?

After 9-11, I thought we should confine our efforts to the Al Qaeda organization. Instead, Bush decided to condemn half the Middle East with his Axis of Evil speech and roll tanks into Iraq.

It bothered me. It still bothers me. But dammit, if you look at the patterns, it seems to be working. The Middle East thinks Bush is batshit crazy, and their governments are afraid of us. Do you get that? The bad guys are afraid of us, because against all logic and common sense, we went into Iraq and we took Saddam down. . . .

In 2001, New York was burning and we were afraid. Today, there are American flags flying in Baghdad and our enemies are afraid.

Will Collier reports on someone who doesn't. What's wrong with this picture?

And what would Kerry do? Andrew Sullivan opines:

I think we have an answer here: no war in Iraq; no war anywhere; just law enforcement measures and cooperation with the French, Russians, and Germans. All the problems of the world stem from U.S. policy. Nowhere does Kerry say anything about the threat of Al Qaeda, or the designs of the Syrians or Iranians, or of Islamist terror-states more broadly. These real threats just don't seem to register on his radar screen. If this is the Democratic candidate's recipe to tackling the nexus of global terror, then he will be creamed in the fall. And he'll deserve to be.

Brendan Minitan: "Fighting terrorism, however, is increasingly dividing this country--and not always along party lines. There are two distinctive camps developing. One comprised of Americans who don't think the war is something that should touch their everyday lives. And another that sees combating terrorism as a fundamental struggle not just between good and evil but also over the soul of this nation--a struggle over who we are, as a people, and what we will tolerate on the world stage."

Hakmao

The question of whether Saddam Hussein was a monstrous, murderous tyrant has two answers - "no" or "yes". There is no "yes but". Every week that people stood around wringing their hands and making excuses saw hundreds more Iraqis die. Thousands left without sons, daughters, parents, aunts, spouses, teachers, plumbers... Hand-wringing has a singular ability to fill mass graves - Srebrenica, Rwanda. Oh it's terrible, but what can we do?

Tim Blair responds:

The anti-war crowd obsesses over WMD because it is the one issue they've got even partly right, having been proved massively wrong on likely casualties, humanitarian disasters, a united Islamic response, Saddam's capture – and, indeed, on WMD, subsequently discovered in Libya as a direct result of the war in Iraq. They don't mention that very often, do they? Anyway, the WMD argument is boring. Here's a fun challenge for the anti-warriors: instead of complaining about Saddam's removal, let's hear your arguments in favour of leaving him in power. Go on; defend the monster.

Before the peaceniks reply, they might consider the opinion of Iraqi hospital worker Ali, posted at the web site http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com and directed at opponents of the war: "F*** YOU ALL. GWB MADE THE RIGHT DECISION AND AMERICA DID THE RIGHT THING AND WE ARE FREEEEEEEEEE!" Sounds kind of happy about it, doesn't he?

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan.

Oh, I'll blog on his domestic agenda some other day!