Sound and Fury: 10/25 Wrap up

So the last full week before the election begins. It seems like both camps sprung their October surprises. Here's my rundown.

Kerry's camp popped up with these boners:

• a camp that may have held al-Zaqawi had been identified pre-Iraq invasion in Iraq. So much for the no al-Qaeda connection with Iraq, eh. But anyhow, the way they want to spin it is that we didn't hit the camp because it might have upset our plans to invade Iraq. The WH says they didn't trust the intelligence. Sounds like more 20/20 hindsight stuff to me, but hey, I'm just a biased observer. On the other hand it is rich to hear the left declaiming the accuracy of our intelligence community when just yesterday they were saying just the opposite. Have to hand it to those boys, they sure are consistently inconsistent. (some references: here ).
  
• Their second big surprise is that 240-270 tons of high explosives went missing in the confusion of the invasion. Now it might seem suspicious to you, the gentle reader, that this information would come to light just a week before the election. The boys over at LGF point out that 250,000 tons of munitions have been recovered and much destroyed since the invasion. But this seems to pass right over the head of the truly left biased (reality based community indeed!?). I guess they expect lightning quick blitzes across a country the size of California should be a tame ordinary affair and nothing unplanned or unexpected occur. If this is their big October surprise, it might be a black Tuesday for the socialistas. (see here and here and here).
  

The Bush crowd countered with just one "surprise":

• Kerry lied. The accusation was that Kerry had bolstered his claim to Diplomatic finesse by recounting a "hours long" meeting with the "entire" security council. It seems that many of the "entire" security council never met with Mr Kerry. The left has spun back with, ok he exaggerated a little, but he met with some of them! Now this will probably count for nothing (as noted here) with the rabid anti-Bush crowd, most of whom would vote for Judas Iscariot if he was running against Bush (and even if they knew who he was). But amongst the swing voter, who hears over and over "Bush Lied" as a reason for displacing him. "Kerry Lies too but so what?" makes for a poor refrain.

Some quiet questions:

• If the left wants to keep calling themselves the "reality-based community" when do those deluded "left-wingnuts" propose they will explain to the rest of us what the word "reality" means to them? They certainly show no signs of hewing to the standard English definition of reality.
• Does the left really think campaign violence is the best way to swing the undecided voter? See the previous question for a possible explanation.
  
• With respect to the various blossoming of random violence by the dems in this election. Do you think they might bring back the "good old" Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood slogan that worked so well in the "Terror"? They certainly picked a good franco-phile for a mascot.
• How does marshalling a flotilla of lawyers pre-election balance with wanting a "fair" election? Is it just me, or do lots and lots of lawyers not make me sleep easier knowing my rights are protected? (assaulted?)

Update: A must read by Chrenkoff.