the number one republican blogger of all time had 35 posts today.

he began at 8:35 am and stopped at 11:26 pm.

fifteen hours of mostly political blogging for your ass. more than two posts an hour on this, the first day of the republican national convention.

the convention that among other things will rally the troops to re-elect the president of the united states, george bush.

and yet prof. reynolds mentioned “Bush” a mere half dozen times today, on what for even the prolific blogger was an impressively productive day.

what were the six times the blogfather mentioned bush? once to link the spoof Cheerleaders For Truth webpage; twice to get last night’s MTV Video award booing story wrong three times (could it be that i was the only person who actually watched the stupid thing?); once to link to a blog that speculates that the president somehow got an olympic bounce; twice in reference to a blog that reported that there were some absurd obscure leftists in the quarter million protestors yesterday including “a coven of conspiracy theorists” who had signs that accused the president of having advance warning of 9-11.

so cheerleaders for truth, the mtv booing, the olympic bounce and yesterday’s protesters saying that bush knew

35 posts and yet not one about what the President actually said today?

Did he say anything today?

yes, fellow readers of the instapundit, my favorite blog, he did.

George W. Bush began his morning on the Today show where he told Matt Lauer that we cannot win the war on terrorism.

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you’ll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”

Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

Bush: “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let’s put it that way.

sen john edwards put that little quote in a press release at 1:30pm and later declared, “John Kerry and I believe that this war on terror is winnable; they don’t.”

in 35 posts, the worlds most popular blogger mentioned “Kerry” eight times. (swift boat, “distance itself from Kerry“, daughters getting booed, kerry lied, kerry mia, kerry should take speech-making lessons from mccain)

but strangely nothing about kerry and edwards saying that the war on terror was winnable.

earlier in the interview, the president explained how the $455 billion deficit was pretty good… or something

Lauer: “Let me ask you about deficits –- this year $445 billion. That’s ballpark? You think that’s pretty good?”

President Bush: “Yeah. I do. I do.”

Lauer: “Alright –- and by the way less than projected –- at that time we were projecting…”

President Bush: “Five.”

Lauer: “Five-hundred and fifty.”

President Bush: “Yeah, something like that.”

Lauer: “Does the deficit matter?”

President Bush: “Well, I think it does in the long run. I really do. And I think it’s very important for those of us running for office to explain how we’re going to deal with the deficit. I’ve laid out a specific plan that shows the deficit being reduced by half in five years. It’s going to require fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C.”

Lauer: “If the deficit does not come down, if you can’t pay it down in half by 2008, will you raise taxes?”

Bush: “It’s going to come down in half. That’s the goal. I mean I …”

Lauer: “If it doesn’t?”

Bush: “There’s no need to answer a hypothetical, cause it is going to. That’s what we’ve got in place and that’s what we’ve got in mind. Raising taxes now would be a disaster.”

because a $455 billion deficit after a $5.8 trillion surplus somehow isnt a disaster?

i suppose it all depends on what your definition of disaster is.

the president’s Time magazine interview might very well turn out to be… not so good. today it was embarrassing twice for him, but you’d never know if you only read the instapundit’s 35 posts.

according to the australian, the interview includes president bush admiting they hadnt planned properly for the iraq war, a “catastrophic success”, he called the $130 billion venture and cause of 975 US military deaths, 6,323 american wounded soldiers, and 12,000 iraqi civilian deaths

edwards, the australian reports, also jumped on that quote as well. handilly.

thirty five posts today, and yet the instapundit hasnt mentioned edwards once in three days.

president bush also unfurled a beautiful gem when he said “I’m not the historian – I’m the guy making history.”

Iraq success ‘catastrophic’: Bush

by Roy Eccleston

The Australian

August 31, 2004

[NEW YORK] George W. Bush has admitted the US failed to plan for a speedy victory in Iraq, describing the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime as a “catastrophic success”.

In a rare concession from the President, who dislikes admitting error, Mr Bush told Time magazine that his planners had not considered the prospect of a quick collapse.

“Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success – being so successful, so fast, that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in, escaped and lived to fight another day,” he said.

Mr Bush sought to blame the prolonged war – in which 969 US troops have been killed so far – on an over-quick victory that meant the US ended up having to fight “a third more” of Hussein’s Baathist supporters than military planners had expected.

Democrat vice-presidential candidate John Edwards seized on the comment, made as the President prepares for a high-profile week with the Republican Party’s national convention in New York.

“President Bush now says his Iraq policy is a catastrophic success,” Senator Edwards said yesterday. “He’s half right. It was catastrophic to rush to war without a plan to win the peace.”

Mr Bush said he believed the war on terrorism would be a long-lasting ideological struggle, but he declined to call it a fourth world war, saying: “I’m not the historian – I’m the guy making history.”

indeed.

ken layne + jim gilliam + fimoculous is back, thnx buzzmachine + flagrant airways

if he was running for president this time out i would have a hard time not voting for him. it’s safe to say i probably would.

Here are two excerpts.

Remember how we felt when the serenity of a bright September morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity so hostile to all human virtue we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it.

We were united.

First, in sorrow and anger.

Then in recognition we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are – a people united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, not governments, not armies, not a pitiless, inhumane theocracy, not kings, mullahs or tyrants, but the people.

In that moment, we were not different races.

We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries. We were Americans.

All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility.

All other responsibilities come second.

We must not lose sight of that as we debate who among us should bear the greatest responsibility for keeping us safe and free. We must, whatever our disagreements, stick together in this great challenge of our time.

My friends in the Democratic Party – and I’m fortunate to call many of them my friends – assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government’s most important obligation. I don’t doubt their sincerity.

They emphasize that military action alone won’t protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy.

They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all, that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies.

We agree.

And, as we’ve been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle.

and then later he took a jab at Michael Moore who was in attendence (who had been kicked off the floor earlier because of “lack of credentials”, and later allowed to return, although “roped off“).

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn’t between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.

It was between war and a graver threat. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad.

Not our political opponents.

And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam’s Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from

international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

The central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can’t be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.

We couldn’t afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times. By destroying his regime we gave hope to people long oppressed that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.

we need more leaders, from both side of the aisle to speak in these sorts of even terms. (even if theyre wrong.)

reason’s convention blog + moore’s usa today column today + lemon odor + found on floor

when i was in Hell last year they have an orientation that i was forced to attend.

unfortunately there wasnt a video clip of the Bush twins behind me. the room of evil people really did razz me.

here’s the post incase you forgot:

when i was in the orientation meeting everyone had to stand up and introduce themselves.

hi, my name is tony. i was an undercover superhero in hollywood, california, earth, and now im here.

everyone booed.

down here that means hi.

it also means boo.

what were my hobbies?

i liked model planes, horticulture and reading the Bible.

they booed louder.

tony was also a very popular blogger.

this made them stop booing.

and slowly

they started to laugh.

hysterically.

one guy was crying he was laughing so much.

soon someone knocked at the door to see what was happening, someone told the guy and they pointed at me. then they both started laughing and patting each other on the back.

then i started laughing cuz it was pretty funny.

then everyone settled down.

then some lady chuckled.

then another lady gafawwed.

a dude snorted.

then everyone laughed again.

i laughed, farted, then laughed harder.

someone tried to ask me a question, but busted out laughing.

then everyone joined in again.

a fat guy turned blue and wheezed while catching his breath, his buddy opened his shirt a little and waved some air at him. he took out his asthma thing and blew some air in his lungs and stopped looking blue.

then he coughed.

then he went back to laughing.

then he ripped a little fart.

then everyone started laughing all over again.

ah, memories

melting dolls has some tips for the terrorists + jaime + kool keith