BUSH'S COOL RECEPTION ?????

John Kerry and his keepers are making a big deal out of the cool reception President Bush received at the United Nations yesterday. Even some members of the media are joining in. I listened to a CNN newscast where it was reported that Bush's speech was not interrupted once by applause, and that there was only polite applause at the finish. This is supposed to give you the idea that Bush's speech was in contrast with other foreign leaders who are apparently met with with multiple interruptions of raucous applause and a balloon drop at the end.

Compare the approach of CNN with that of Fox News. Fox reported that the custom at the UN is that speeches are not to be interrupted with applause, and that applause at the end of the speech is to be merely polite. You are, however, allowed to hammer your shoe on the table if that floats your particular boat. This report by Brit Hume is, of course, further proof that Fox News is merely a sounding board for right wing kooks.

But what about the speech itself? The speech was a home run .. the crowd just doesn't understand baseball. Bush's speech was filled with the kind of thing that the UN diplomats, dictatorships didn't want to hear. Bush talked of all sorts of crazy stuff about liberty, democracy, human rights, freedom and dignity. Those are the kinds of things that the United Nations is supposed to stand for, but clearly does not. Never really has.

President Bush told the UN diplomats that "Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance." Limits on the power of the state? Just how many of the people in that audience wanted to hear any nonsense on limiting the power of the state? And what's this about protection of private property? Doesn't Bush understand that all property really belongs to the state? Free speech? Religious tolerance? Who is this cowboy trying to kid?

Do you know what these delegates really wanted to hear? They wanted the type of speech that John Kerry would deliver. They wanted to hear of appeasement. They wanted to hear that the United States was fully prepared to cripple it's own manufacturing economy for the sake of strengthening the economies of Euro-weenies and third-world dictators. They wanted to hear that America would, from this point on, only send its troops overseas when the United Nations approved. They wanted a speech ringing with the surrender of American sovereignty. Elect The Poodle this year and they may get exactly what they want next year ... but for now they deal with George Bush.

The fact is that the United Nations does not share the values of the United States. Try as he might, President Bush cannot say or do anything that will put the miserable and blatantly anti-American United Nations in a positive light. They have been a failure. It may no longer be in the best interests of the United States to continue participating. After all, we're paying the majority of the bill for this pathetic waste of valuable New York real estate. Anyway, back to the speech.

Bush then started off six paragraphs with the phrase "Because we believe in human dignity..." and went on to talk about things that the United States has done to make the world a better place. Fighting AIDS, poverty, human trafficking, debt relief and so on. But you see, that doesn't matter. No matter what America does, it is never enough. There was nothing Bush could have said to that inept body yesterday that would have made them view America in a positive light. Nothing.

They hate the United States for the same reason terrorists do. They hate our freedom, they hate our way of life, they hate our economic and military strength. It's time to go.

Just one idea to leave you with. Can you imagine what would happen if the United States announced that at some time certain it was going to withdraw from the United Nations and cease all further funding. At that time the United States would form a new international organization loosely modeled after the UN .. but with one huge difference. Only states who's leaders are popularly elected in open and free elections, and who place civilians in charge of the military, will be allowed to join.

JUST WHERE DOES THIS MAN STAND?

The Poodle has decided that for the remaining weeks of the campaign he is going to concentrate on attacking George Bush's record in Iraq. That's pretty much it. Iraq and not much else. So, as soon as Bush finished talking to the ingrates and America-haters at the United Nations yesterday Kerry went on the offensive, saying that Bush had somehow squandered an opportunity. An opportunity to what? Grovel? Bush missed an opportunity to adopt a submissive pose in the presence of the great Kofi Annan? Bush missed a golden opportunity to apologize to the UN for actually putting some teeth in Security Council resolutions after 12 years of Saddam Hussein's antics?

Kerry keeps telling the voters how he would have done things better. So, after all these weeks can any of you out there actually put Kerry's position on Iraq into one concise, easy to understand phrase or sentence?

Kerry tried to do just that yesterday afternoon when he said: "The management of this war has been both arrogant, lacking in candor, and incompetent. I have one position. What I've always said is the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. The question is how you do it." Now that would indicate to me that Kerry approved of going to Iraq and deposing Saddam ... but that he just thinks Bush went about it all wrong.

But on Monday night David Letterman asked Kerry "If you had been elected president in November of 2000, would we be in Iraq now?" Kerry's answer? "No." So that's Kerry's secret? You somehow rid the world of Saddam Hussein, but you don't go into Iraq. But then if you ask The Soufflé if he regrets voting to give George Bush the right to go into Iraq and depose Saddam he says no!

But wait! On November 9, 2002, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Kerry said: "I think it would be naive at the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world."

Then on May 3, 2003, after the invasion of Iraq: "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Then on December 16, 2003, after Saddam Hussein was captured, Kerry says "Those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president of the United States."

Then yesterday we have Kerry saying that he doesn't even know if the invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal. How's that? He has all the answers, he knows just how the war should have been and should be fought, and he doesn't even have an opinion as to whether or not Bush's actions were legal?

They ought to make a board game out of this stuff.

Crystal clear, don't you think? It's always nice to know just where a candidate stands on the issues