Mick Wright.net

Yesterday Osama Bin Laden came out with a new tape on Al-Jazeera, threatening the United States.

Typically, the Left has little to say about Al Qaeda’s threats or beheadings, and instead pounces on the “alien-making rhetoric” of the Right.

That’s why I’m so pleased with the latest statement from John Kerry: “They are barbarians.”

Of course, Kerry also reprised his BS about Tora Bora: “[President Bush] didn’t choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job.” But that doesn’t bother me too much, given that Gen. Tommy Franks torpedoed that lie nearly two weeks ago, after the first dozen times Kerry repeated it.

For now, I will ignore that and relish his simple “barbarians” quote above. By saying that, Kerry corroborates with President Bush, Colin Powell and Jonah Goldberg.

Let’s review what the Left has to say about that, shall we? The following comes from the comments on that last link, part of fishkite’s Geneva Watch series:

the barbarians? they haven’t existed since the roman empire…

“Anonymous”

***

What a relief that our enemies don’t exist!

Oh, wait…

bar*bar*i*an: “A fierce, brutal, or cruel person. A cruel, savage, brutal man; one destitute of pity or humanity.”

“Jonah”

***

dear jonah,

your namesake had the same problem with us vs. them.

if you’re going to be so general in your definitions, we are all barbarians.

“Anonymous”

***

My definition is definitely either too liberal or too strict, that’s for sure. Heck, maybe it’s both!

“Jonah”

***

i think it’s probably better just to avoid the “barbarian” language altogether. way too many times, for way too many years, we westerners have fallen prey to our own alien-making rhetoric. just like in that def above, it starts to beg the question of what “human” means, and that’s nothing if not a giant cesspool of a question to beg.

“Anonymous”

***

I think it’s probably better not to equate terrorists with “all” humanity, especially if all you can provide to back up that idea is a photograph of a frightened terrorist surrounded by restrained dogs.

Or you should at least have the balls to sign your name when you do it.

“Jonah”

***

i think it’s even better not to assume that everyone has balls. Your mother never had any. Why do you think I do? Call me A. You’ll never meet me Jonah, so stop worrying about me, and pay attention to your own argument. You show yourself more and more like your namesake every day.

I made no such equation, although every person, from Jeffrey Dahmer to Mother Theresa, is part of “all” humanity. I suspect there is no single representative figure. The next photo in the series–as I know you are well aware–doesn’t show the dogs to be restrained. taken only a few minutes after that one, it shows the same naked man, bleeding. why are you so quick to dismiss a man’s humanity? “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal”–that self-evidence is prior to all laws and politics. It is the assumption on which our country is built. Why are you so eager to throw it away? Because “they threw it away first”? Well, that’s a terrible argument: it makes you no better than they are. Do you assert that the American system and democracy and freedom is the best system of government? Then when you throw your belief in that system away because it is inconvenient, because it gets in the way of discovering the terrorists, then you attest to the world that it is not worth believing in. Pragmatism has not accomplished what you want it to accomplish. It has spread no gospel of democracy. It has spread instead fear and trembling.

“Anonymous”

***

I keep forgetting which category Mother Theresa fits in… fierce, brutal, or cruel.

Do you remember, A?

“S.”

***

Mother Theresa could be brutally honest, if that counts.

But the question of barbarism usually boils down to one of humanity/non-humanity. (Sometimes it’s one of civilization/non-civilization.)

Some might argue, then, that Mother Theresa was less-than human because she was celibate and refused to embrace as her own the whole of human experience.

I wouldn’t say that, myself. I’d rather say that the entire scope of human action–from the awfully selfish to the beautifully selfless–is just that, human.

“Anonymous”

As the discussion continues, the commenters’ identities are revealed:

But it helps me to think of it this way:

what we call “barbarians,” someone else calls “infidels,” and in the end, on both sides, all it means is that nobody cares to really listen to what anybody else is actually saying.

we all have our ways of writing off everybody that’s not us. i don’t know how to get around it or beyond it. But i do know that reaching back to categorizations of civilized/uncivilized have never helped accomplish anything but pride and hatred in the past, and it probably won’t help accomplish anything now, either.

“Anonymous”

***

Wrong again, A.

I do listen to what they are saying. It is impossible to listen and not conclude that they are barbarians.

Here’s a sample from the Zarqawi Letter:

“[Americans], as you know, are the most cowardly of God’s creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained shaykhs and brothers.”

The Iraqi people agree with my view: “they are not prisoners of war, they are criminals; they are killers.”

You folks on the far left are the ones who are deaf and ignorant. We’re at war with savage terrorists and all you can do is “panic” and piss your pants over a few prison photos.

You merit yourself as “anti-war” but you are only anti-American and anti-Bush. When did you link to photos of Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl? Where is your outrage over Paul Johnson’s bloody demise? When have you cited any wrongdoing by any government but your own? When did you protest Clinton’s bombing campaigns?

The hyprocrisy is unparalleled.

On top of that, you don’t have the balls to sign your name. It’s no wonder the terrorists think we’re cowards.

“Jonah”

***

is it so difficult to reserve your outrage and anger and direct it toward Al-Qaida-on-the-peninsula rather than to “barbarians” and “savages”? i fail to see what you gain by overgeneralizing in order to denounce people. What do you get when you say I am “the left”? From my vantage point, all I can see is that you just make your testicles swell like pinnochio’s nose. And it ain’t pretty.

jonah, you have more than enough rage for the world without me adding to it. i wager it comes from your too-swollen testicles. but just to ameliorate you–there, I signed my name.

i mean this question seriously. how is it wise to counter dogmatism and hatred with more dogmatism and hatred? i don’t ask it because i think that men who unconscionably murder innocent people are people who can be talked to. i ask it because they are not the ones who listen to rhetoric. others do, however, including their children, their neighbors, their coun
t
rymen. Those people are the ones we talk to; those people are the ones we convince. But we only convince them to hate if hate is all we can show.

“my name”

***

When Ninevah repented and God stood down, Jonah sulked. “He became angry,” reads the scripture. “He prayed to the Lord and said, ‘O Lord! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing. And now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

And so Jonah showed that he cared more for the punishment of the wicked than he did for their repentance. More than that, Jonah revealed that he hated God’s forgiveness. Jonah fully understood the prophesies he spoke, but he hated their consequence because they revealed that his God was greater than he.

How cool is that?

“Anonymous”

***

Here’s a recent article from TIME about a Soviet minder who seems to have been convinced, to use your term, by Reagan’s “evil empire” rhetoric.

“Jonah”

***

is my term ‘evil empire’ or is it ‘rhetoric’?

“Anonymous”

***

Oh how very clever, A.

Oh, wait…

You missed God’s command that Jonah “preach against” Nineveh because of its “wickedness.”

They were so “evil” that God was going to destroy them unless they turned from their wicked ways.

So when Jonah finally went, he used strong language, and Ninevah was… only “convinced” of Jonah’s hatred?

Nope. In fact, they repented.

And here you’re asking for him to watch his language… to refrain from such categorizations of people!

“Jonah”

***

jonah, was your primary point to say that they repented?

because i said that already.

my point was primarily about jonah. that’s the point of the book, too.

“Anonymous”

***

Your argument that calling them barbarians won’t accomplish anything is pointless, because NOTHING we do will accomplish anything, at least not in the way I believe you would define accomplishment. This is an enemy whose goal is not to convert us to its way of thinking; it’s goal is to kill us.

You can wring your hands all day long about how we are not properly kissing the rest of the world’s ass, but that doesn’t bring us closer to accomplishing anything, either.

And can someone explain to me why Greg is now “anonymous” and Mick is now “Jonah”?

Tom

***

I can’t speak for grAg, but I can tell you that my use of “Jonah” was a convienient nickname for at least three reasons – 1. to lampoon his unsigned comment. 2. because he was commenting on a column by another Jonah. 3. because my middle name is Jonah, just like Greg’s middle name is Greg.

My last point, which he strategically claims to have missed, is this: let’s call a spade a spade.

I wonder what A. would have said if he was in Ninevah and heard Jonah “preach against” the people there.

I’m sure he would have said Jonah’s use of “categorizations” such as “evil” and “wicked” would not “accomplish anything.”

But he would’ve been wrong then, as he is now.

Mick

***

I think I partially disagree with Tom, if I read him correctly in saying, “nothing we do will accomplish anything.”

I think it is POSSIBLE that we could defeat terrorism, in part, with the use of strategic, strong language.

It won’t work if we censor ourselves and try to pander to them, if we make every effort not to shame them.

It will only work if we do it Jonah’s way against the formerly wicked Ninevah, or Reagan’s way against the former Soviet Union.

A. thinks he can read my heart, and he thinks he finds rage and hatred there, like Jonah displayed after he successfully preached against Ninevah.

But I will be the first to rejoice when people in the Middle East finally rise up from the wickedness spread by terrorists and dictators there. I will rejoice in their liberty and humanity.

Until then, I will continue to preach against the barbarians who want to kill Americans and their own countrymen.

Anything less shows that we are weak, and that we can be defeated. If we adopt mealy-mouthed talk and refuse to distinguish between al-Zarqawi and Mother Teresa, the terrorism will continue.

Ninevah did not repent without the threat of destruction.

The Soviet Union did not fall without the threat of destruction.

Al Qaeda will not be defeated without the threat of destruction.

Mick

***

But I will be the first to rejoice when people in the Middle East finally rise up from the wickedness spread by terrorists and dictators there. I will rejoice in their liberty and humanity.

Who wouldn’t? Why it is you thought I was saying anything less I don’t know. You’ve written to me as if I were speaking some gospel of powerlessness and weakness. But I’m not. Rather, I’ve been advocating for an ethic of power that does exactly what you want: calls a spade a spade. You wanted to say you were calling “a spade a spade.” OK, fine. But here’s the rub: you did it–and so did Jonah Goldberg, and so did George Bush and Colin Powell and the minister from Saudi Arabia–you did it with language that has traditionally used to diminish entire peoples. For 600 years “savage” has been in our vocabulary and has been used to refer to people who were less-than-human–not because they really acted that way, but because the people in power did not want to see Africans, or Native Americans, or Australian Aborigines as people. “Barbarian” has been used the same way for 500 years. So when you begin talking of “savages” and “barbarians” even NOW, it is no small step for someone else to hear you speaking of all Arabs.

Of course, all Arabs are not who we fight. Are they?

“Anonymous”

***

So then, let’s single out the bastards, not only in our actions, but also in our language.

Tom, I said exactly the same as you here: how is it wise to counter dogmatism and hatred with more dogmatism and hatred? i don’t ask it because i think that men who unconscionably murder innocent people are people who can be talked to. i ask it because they are not the ones who listen to rhetoric. others do, however, including their children, their neighbors, their countrymen. Those people are the ones we talk to; those people are the ones we convince. But we only convince them to hate if hate is all we can show. The only differnece is you point out who “will not listen,” while I point out who will. I think it’s important to face the world openly than to shake our fists in anger.

“Anonymous”

***

Finally, that is not to say that America cannot show its power, nor is it to say that it shouldn’t. After all, who doesn’t know that America is powerful?

But Ronald Reagan, during his 2nd term of office, actually reduced nuclear weapons. And he listened to Mikhail Gorbachev. You think the iron fist banging on the iron curtain was what it took to destroy the USSR. I think it’s too simple to say that was all it took. And Reagan did too. When he went to Moscow, he walked the streets and he waved and met the people because he loved them–he knew that Russians were not the same as the Soviet state, and he understood that they were worth his love. He did not talk down to them, nor did he diminish them by calling the Russians anything but themselves. Idolize RR fine, but know who it is that you’re idolizing: he wasn’t nearly as dogmatic as you are imagining him to have been.

“Anonymous”

*** />
finally, i don’t know who this greg character is.

i do know that it’s worth remaining anonymous if it bugs you so much.

“Anonymous”

***

fyi,

here are two oxford english dictionary entries for barbarian and for savage. they will be active for three days. any words that are as broadly-defined as these have been used for too many purposes to ever be understood to have narrow reference.

In case I wasn’t clear enough above, I’ll say one more time. I maintain TO call anything “savage” or “barbarian” is not to “call a spade a spade.” THe words are too broad–they explode in meaning outward. So why not write, instead, “Al Qaida of Arabia,” rather than “those savages”? Why is it difficult to single out those who are responsible for unconscionable crimes? Speak of them as individuals, and the whole weight of their crimes will beat down upon their heads.

“Anonymous”

***

“i don’t know who this greg character is.” – Anonymous

Let me help you out. He’s the character who writes like you, about the same subjects, on the same website, from the same IP addresses.

“jonah, was your primary point to say that they repented? becaue i said that already.” – Anonymous | IP: 216.248.123.32

“well, sure, if you make the statement a caption to the image, then it’s plenty explainable.” – greg | IP: 216.248.123.32

You should really meet greg, A. You two make a perfect match.

Mick

***

My “nothing we do will accomplish anything” comment was meant in the context of accomplishing anything with the people who are lopping off heads. No amount of ass-kissing or appeasement will change their minds.

I was not talking about the general population of the Middle East–why is it that when we refer to a barbarian as a barbarian, it is assumed by people like Gregonymous that we are using that term to generalize an entire population? I think it is pretty clear to anyone that someone [who] cuts off a civilian’s head is, in fact, a barbarian, savage, or whatever you want to call it.

Wringing your hands about the etymology of the word or how it has been historically misused does not change the intent that was in my mind when I used it. In fact, I would wager that the majority of the world does not consider how a word might have been misused in the 15th century in order to assign meaning to someone using it today; that is primarily done by elitist academians with nothing better to do.

Tom

As you can probably guess, I thoroughly enjoy that exchange, and having GrAg’s candidate (at least, the candidate I assume he voted for) on record saying the same thing makes it that much better!

About a week ago, I asked a Kerry supporter at work if she could give me just one good reason to vote for him. The immediate answer I got was, “because he’s not Bush.”

Now, I consider that about the worst answer possible. First of all, the person who says that is obviously not listening to or thinking about the questioner, considering the well-established fact that I strongly favor President Bush; she’s not thinking about it from my perspective. Second, that is no reason for anyone to vote for John Kerry, any more than it would be a reason for them to vote for Big Bird or Dennis Kucinich.

The sad fact that seems to underlie his campaign is that there is no reason why he, of all people, should be President. His 20 years in the Senate offer little to boast about, so in order to find the highlight of his life you must reach another 10 years beyond that, to his four months of service in Vietnam and the much trumpeted and controversial record he established then and in the aftermath of his active service in the military. Dean-supporting columnist Paul Krugman famously referenced it this way: “This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.”

I was reminded of my question, and its deficient answer, during the second presidential debate, when John Kerry was asked about taxpayer-funded abortion.

Sarah Degenhart:

Sen. Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that. But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise. That’s why I think it’s important. That’s why I think it’s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. You’ll help prevent AIDS. You’ll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You’ll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

John Kerry says he agrees with the questioner that life begins at conception (we’ll get to that in a minute), but he is unwilling to support legislation that follows from that viewpoint. On top of that, he considers the opposite view to be a “constitutional right” and its practice worthy and demanding of taxpayer funding. Saying he cannot force an article of faith on atheists and Jews (are all of them pro-abortion?), he neglects to realize that he’s forcing Sarah Degenhart (would he say “all Christians”?) to pay for an article of faith she adamantly opposes. How is that at all consistent or fair to her?

That’s even without noting the sheer incoherence of his belief that a fetus is a human life, while shrugging off the protection of that human life as simply an “article of faith.” Could one not say that the worth of John Kerry’s life as a human being is just an article of faith; why is murder wrong at all… what if a murderous atheist doesn’t agree with that belief?

Below I highlight some comments and criticism from around the “internets,” but I’m not sure why the pundits are so surprised; Kerry said almost the exact same thing in July. Here’s version one:

“I am a person of faith and I’m very serious about my faith,” Kerry said. He said he believes that life begins at conception and he is personally opposed to abortion. “But I can’t take my Catholic view and legislate it on a Protestant or Hindu,” he said.

Version two:

“I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.” …”I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist,” he continued in the interview. “We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.”

Now for the reactions… Glenn Reynolds:

I think Kerry’s answer here is very good — I won’t legislate what’s a matter of faith for me. As a President I have to represent all the people. You can take that position and not be pro-abortion.

I think this is Kerry’s best answer so far.

Bush: A shorter and simpler answer: We’re not going to spend taxpayer money on abortion. Moves to partial-birth abortion ban, and parental notification, “unborn victims of violence act.” “Every child protected by law and welcomed in life.” This sounds focus-group-tested.

Kerry: It’s not that simple.

I think this is a place where nuance will play well, actually, and I think he handles it well.

Bush: It’s pretty simple. You vote yes or no on banning partial-birth abortion, you voted no. You can run but you can’t hide.

Mickey Kaus:

Kerry’s tortured, intellectually bogus answer on abortion — ‘I think it’s murder but I would never base legislation on morality!’ — suggests that one of my co-watchers was right to think the way to trip him up is on “smaller,” discrete values questions like abortion and capital punishment. Update: Saletan has more detail on why Kerry’s abortion answer was “awful” politicking.

Will Saletan:

I know something about abortion politics, so I can tell you how effective Kerry’s answer was. It was awful. He defended public funding of abortion, which most Americans oppose, while at the same time he managed to convey ambivalence about the legal right to abortion, which most Americans support. Bush immediately punished him — “I’m trying to decipher that,” the president joked — and blasted Kerry for opposing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and laws requiring parents to be notified when their minor daughters seek abortions. Kerry proceeded to defend his positions on these issues, each of which Bush had brought up precisely because it’s a loser for Kerry. Not once did Kerry point out that Bush favors a wildly unpopular Ramesh Ponnuru:

Kerry said that he didn’t think that girls whose fathers had raped them should be forced to report their abortions to the rapist. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee points out that Kerry has voted no on parental-notification bills that included exceptions and safeguards to prevent such a scenario from occurring.

William Safire:

In an anguishing moment, Kerry said he was against partial-birth abortion (as are most voters, including many pro-choice) and then explained why he voted against the ban that is now law. Countered Bush: “He was given a chance to vote and he voted no… It’s clear for everybody to see. And as I said, you can run, but you can’t hide.”

This was actually a pretty big deal a couple months ago. Here’s the Boston Globe:

John F. Kerry’s recent remark that “life begins at conception” has brought confusion and criticism from both sides of the abortion debate… although he has indicated that as president, he would not impose this belief. But a logical conclusion from his statements might be that he would support policies that he privately abhors, that he may even consider to be murder, ethicists said.

…”I oppose abortion, personally,” Kerry told a reporter for an Iowa newspaper. “I don’t like abortion. I believe life begins at conception.”

He continued: “But I don’t take my Catholic beliefs, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant, on a Jew, or an atheist, who doesn’t share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.”

Kerry added: “There is something called freedom of conscience in the Catholic Church.”

…”John Kerry’s belief that life begins at conception and his support of proabortion legislation shows that killing babies is OK with Kerry,” said Janice Crouse of the Concerned Women for America, a conservative group.

Some abortion rights advocates, meanwhile, have privately expressed concern about Kerry’s choice of words on when life begins, although they note that Kerry has been a firm supporter of abortion rights in the US Senate. Planned Parenthood of America gives him a 100 percent rating.

“We think there is room in the prochoice movement for a wide range of views,” said Erin Rowland, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood’s Massachusetts wing. “You couldn’t have a candidate with a stronger voting record.”

And the Washington Post has some insight:

…abortion is an issue Kerry would rather avoid, according to Democrats inside and outside of his campaign.

…Kerry has professed his personal opposition to abortion since his unsuccessful 1972 campaign for Congress. “On abortion, I myself, by belief and upbringing, am opposed to abortion but as a legislator, as one who is called on to pass a law, I would find it very difficult to legislate on something God himself has not seen fit to make clear to all the people on this earth… And I think, therefore, with a sense of justice in mind that one has to leave the question of abortion between a woman and her conscience and her doctor,” he told the Sun, a Lowell, Mass., newspaper, in 1972.

But Kerry apparently has never said whether he agrees with the Catholic Church that abortion is a sin and akin to murder. “John Kerry’s personal feelings about church doctrine are a private matter. He’s made it clear that he’s committed to upholding a woman’s right to privacy, and that he wants an America where abortion is safe, legal and rare,” said David Wade, a Kerry spokesman.

To finish out this post, here are links to Kerry’s voting record on life issues: issues2000.org, national right to life, nojohnkerry.org.

(Via “lotsa people“) Here we go again…

So, how many members of a Kerry administration would it take to change a light bulb?

None. “The objective was never to change the lightbulb but to light the room. Now, President Bush says the lightbulb would still not be replaced if it were up to me, but I say not necessarily. I have never changed my mind about the lightbulb. I decided from the very beginning that it was right to give the authority for the President to change the lightbulb, but he broke his promise about the way he would use that authority. President Bush rushed to change the lightbulb, without waiting for the inspectors to verify that the old lightbulb was blown out, and as a result we paid 90% of the cost of the new bulb and we had virtually no help in replacing it.

“I have a plan to change the lightbulb. I will go after all the lightbulbs and change them; nobody can stop me. But I won’t change a single lightbulb unless it passes the local test and everyone in the room agrees that it should be replaced.

“When President Bush rushed to replace the bulb unilaterally, he alienated all our friends in the room who prefer to live in total darkness. I will get them on board and convince them not only to appreciate the new lightbulb but to replace it for us.

“President Bush also failed to equip us with the gloves and sunglasses we needed to replace the lightbulb safely. Now, I made a mistake in saying I would support the purchase of the new bulb and equipment, before I decided against it. But President Bush made a mistake in replacing this lightbulb instead of putting batteries in all our flashlights. Which is a worse mistake? And meanwhile four to six lightbulbs in other areas are going out, and this happened while President Bush was replacing the wrong lightbulb in the wrong place at the wrong time. Before President Bush was in charge there was maybe one bad lightbulb, maybe!

“Changing the lightbulb was not a mistake. Anyone who thinks the room shouldn’t be artificially lit does not have good judgment. My position on the light bulb has been totally consistent. I’ve always wanted the new light bulb, but I thought we should change it the right way.

“I’m qualified to replace the light bulb because for nearly four months, 30 years ago, I was part of a team that tried to replace them. We did so in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan. We taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power. After that, I threw my light bulbs over the fence, and those were the lightbulbs themselves. Actually, it was just the empty package I threw over. No, on second thought, it was somebody else’s lightbulb. Back then, lightbulbs and empty packages were completely interchangeable.

“Exactly three of my fellow lightbulb servicemen support me, as do exactly four recently retired lightbulb servicemen. Pay no attention to the hundreds of thousands of those who say I lack the ability to change lightbulbs; they are just politically motivated attack dogs sent by President Bush to challenge my patriotism.

“President Bush had a plan to change the lightbulb, but he had no plan to turn on the lightswitch. A dark, unlit room is a grave and serious threat, but we need to change lightbulbs the right way. The President’s father changed a lightbulb the right way a decade ago, getting all our allies on board, but I was against it back then.

“If you think lightbulbs should be changed, I deeply respect your belief, and I agree with you. But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith. Some people like darkness.

“If I had been in charge, we may or may not have replaced the lightbulb.

“I have a plan to change the lightbulb, and I have been entirely consistent in that.”