Massachusetts in Mourning Over Iraq Election

John Podhoretz writing today in The New York Post does a little "in your face" to John Kerry, who had the misfortune of appearing on Meet the Press yesterday a few minutes after the polls closed in Iraq:

It's a big fat gigantic winning vindication of the guy that the Moores and Kennedys and millions of others still can't believe anybody voted for.

And they know it.

And it's killing them.

Case in point: the junior Eeyore from Massachusetts, John Forbes Kerry, who had the distinct misfortune of being booked onto "Meet the Press" yesterday only 90 minutes after the polls closed in Iraq — and couldn't think of a thing to say that didn't sound negative.

"No one in the United States should try to overhype this election," said the man who actually came within 3 million votes of becoming the leader of the Free World back in November.

No? How about "underhyping"? How about belittling it? How about acting as though it doesn't matter all that much? That's what Kerry did, and in so doing, revealed yet again that he has the emotional intelligence of a pet rock and the political judgment of a . . . well, of a John Kerry.

At the worst possible time to express pessimistic skepticism, Kerry did just that. The election only had a "kind of legitimacy," he said. He said he "was for the election taking place" (how big of him!), but then said that "it's gone as expected."

Hey, wait a second. If it went as Kerry "expected," how could he have been "for the election taking place" — since the election only had, in his view, a "kind of legitimacy"?

I mean, who would want an election with only a "kind of legitimacy"?

Is Kerry perhaps saying he was for the election before he was against it?

Of course, the senior Eeyore from Massachusetts was equally jubilant at the results (from Newsmax):

Troop-bashing Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy said Sunday that the historic election in Iraq doesn't really change much, repeating his call for the U.S. to begin pulling its forces out of the country immediately.

Urging President Bush to "look beyond the election," Kennedy griped:

"The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is for the administration to withdraw some troops now."
"At least 12,000 American troops, probably more, should leave at once," Kennedy said, in order "to send a strong signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation."

Two days before the election the Massachusetts Democrat recommended a pullot, complaining that "the U.S. military presence [in Iraq] has become part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Podhoretz sums it up best in his closing paragraphs:

Yesterday was a day for Democrats and opponents of George W. Bush to swallow their bile and retract their claws and join just for a moment in celebration of an amazing and thrilling human drama in a land that has seen more than its share of thrilling human drama over the past 5,000 years.

But you just couldn't do it, could you?

Losers.