Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 30, 2004.
terrorism will never be eradicated and although I'm sure he didn't intend to say what he did because it undermines everything his presidency is about. As long as there are disenfranchised people in this world and religious/cultural fundamentalism to back them up, there will always be terrorists. More to the point, until Pakistan, Israel, and the house of saud get their acts together, terrorism will only grow in the ME, not decline.
I was watching a piece the other day about GW's involvement in his dad's reelection bid. One quote stuck out at me, and I'll paraphrase:
"I thought my dad should have used the popularity from the victory in Iraq and focused on that more and he could have won."
GW has learned from his pop's mistakes.
Maybe he should be campaigning on his dad's gulf war success, the coalition, the low allied casualties, the achievement of predetermined goals as opposed to the quagmire we're in now.
You know it's funny. No, it's maddening -- every word John Kerry has ever spoked about Iraq is deconstructed and examined with an electron microscope for signs of contradictions, and then, when Mr. Bush makes glaringly inconsistent statements about minor issues such as whether it matters whether we apprehend Osama Bin Ladin or if the war on terror is winnable, none of these same people even bat an eyelash.
I feel like I've entered another dimension of time and space.
And yet those who scream about Kerry's 'voting for the $87B before voting against it' will gladly accept McClellan's explanation that Bush really meant that no formal surrender is likely. And they won't listen to Kerry's reason for his flip flops.
When will BTTM, Leo, and other who hammer Kerry for his flip flops finally admit that both candidates do it and moveonplease?
This is not a "flip-flop," it is a major contradiction. It goes right to the heart of the difference between the advertising and the product. And where did my "liberal" LA Times run this story? On page A-31, in a political story, which also included this astonishing rebuttal:
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt accused Democrats of taking the president's comment out of context.
"It's another reason why they have a growing credibility problem with the American people," Schmidt said.
In what "context" does this make sense, Mr. Schmidt?
are we to understand that we will also not win the Wars on Poverty and Drugs by getting a signed contract of surrender from the enemy?
i'm ever so disappointed!
To quote George Carlin (again):
" What mechanism do we have, in this counrty to deal with Society's problems?
We declare WAR on it. We don't do anything about it, we just declare war on it."
That's reasonable...But I still hate Bush.
He's not even helping to foster that environment where terror is unacceptable. We ourselves are leading by example and enraging the world (and a whole new generation of terrorists) as we do: A significant amount of our action has bordered state-sponsored terrorism at worst and sheer incompetence at best.
John Kerry seems to think it will:
In the same story, John Edwards is quoted as saying it's "absolutely winnable".
The biggest problem with the Dem's ticket is its insatiable desire to please the public. After the Dems have suffered hard from unfair and unflattering sound byte distortions, Kerry and Edwards are doing everything they can to provide the quotes that "feel good." I think in substance, though, they'll do a much better job than Bush.
I'm amazed there has ever been anybody who really thinks that winning the "War on Terror" means an absence of any terroristic acts.
I think part of the trouble is that the US society, generally, thrives on catch-phrase terminology. Doesn't matter if it's bumper-sticker cleverness about politics or the Wendy's "Where's the beef?" ad.
So, anytime somebody tries to give any thoughtful response to some catch-phrase program question, people go to hollering about who meant what by which. The War on Terror stuff's no different from the War on Poverty, insofar as labels vs. reality.
So I'm more into questions about our efforts to date. Have we caught would-be terrorists before they could act. Have we been able to inhibit their planning efforts or acquisition of materiel. That's a lot more important than yousaid/imeant/natternatternatter.
And, no, overall I don't really feel safer, as an individual--but I don't feel any less safe, either. It's possible that terrorist misuse of air travel is less likely. And we oughta scrap the Patriot Act.
Near as I can tell, the only way we'll get some mideasterners to quit wanting to kill us would be to convert to Islam, institute Sharia, and bomb Israel...
I notice you aren't into the natternatter/he said/i meant until it comes to John Kerry's medals 'Rat. It must be nice to always be above the fray...
Well, excuse you, mac. I asked a fairly simple Kerry-question, based on commentary from a reasonably well-respected person. I accepted the only answer I got.
Look: Somebody asks Greenspan about the weather, it's reasonable to wonder, "What did he mean by that?" An extemporaneous Bushism, there's no way of knowing. If Bush were to amplify some comment, there'd be some understanding, maybe. That's why I stay out of a lot of these he-said/he-meant things. There's just not enough information about what the speaker's context really is, in his own mind.
i wonder when this bumber sticker craziness will take over europe..i haven't seen any of those over here...(and i have problem with associating "wendy's"...my guess: is it fast food ? or some eating-pleasure wrapped in plastics ?)
this whole "phrasen-dreschen" (the german word for the overuse of catch-phrases) is taking over ... as seen at the democratic-republican convention ... truly not the way it should be
(a big WTF slipped my lips when watching the RNC: 1. this whole..deeply disgusting..talking about "we need a strong leader who does what needs to be done" sounds ... 2. childish cheering and booing at command...what is this ? politics or ****ing kindergarten ?)
edit: excuse the expression...but i think it has to be said this way...
I absolutely agree. The whole convention thing - with both parties - is ridiculous from a European perspective.
Look, the reason I called you on that is because the entire Kerry medal flap is a he said/he said issue. You were more than willing to jump into that one with both feet. Then when we start nattering about Bush you get on your high horse and start telling us how you don't go in for the he said/he said stuff. Of course that's after you went for it yourself.
Besides, there were at least two other threads coverning the SVBT flap at the time, you started a third and then complained because you weren't getting much in the way of responses. If you want to know what I thought about the SBVT flap, read through the other threads.
Sort of related: Do you see Kerry as a flip-flopper who tries to be on all sides of an issue? Do you see Bush the same way?
A perfectly reasonable question, IMO.
I'm still waiting for someone to attempt to explain the President's glaringly contradictory remarks on an issue that's absolutely central to evaluating his presidency, his bid for a second term, and by the way, the future of the nation.
easy: he went off script. then the script doctors rushed in, injected him w/ "truth" serom, tightened the straight jacket and put him under 24-hour watch. now the war on terror is again winnable.
i'm waiting for mr. mcclellan to explain that it now means there will be a signed peace treaty with the terorrists.
I agree with MOST of what you say. I agree that ending terrorist acts for a time period doesn't mean that we have won this so-called war. I hate calling this the "war on terrorism" because wars allow the suspension of certain freedoms, and in an indefinite struggle like this, that would mean an indefinite suspension of those freedoms and an indefinite, significant change to the very idea of liberty in the United States. No, this is a goal to end terrorism, but it isn't a goal, as you say, whose accomplishment can be measured in the lack of terrorist attacks.
I disagree with your assertion that it's long-term accomplishment can be measured by the thwarting of specific groups or specific people. Don't get me wrong, this must be done, but it's only a short-term (if never-ending) strategy. For enduring peace, we must seek to resolve the issues that motivate terrorism. These are, as I have said in other threads, complex socioeconomic and sociopolitical concerns of international scope--They will be difficult to solve, but in their resolution lies the success we so ardently crave.
Your off-handed non-sequitur that we all have to convert to Islam to keep those "mideasterners" (sic) from attacking us is somewhat offensive. Maybe the key is to allow them to flourish without vicious sanctions that plunge the average citizen into poverty; without unnecessary, unjustified wars that kill thousands of their civilians; and especially without an obtrusive and inconsistent foreign policy that makes it impossible for any nation to either predict our actions or trust our alliance with it.
There are issues of oppression and antipathy that these nations must resolve, as well, to stem the problem, but we cannot always bring about those changes with a stick. Moreover, while we need to strongly encourage (and occassionally force) the reform of wayward nations, we need to look at our wayward actions, as well, and fix those, too. Unless both parties become better citizens of this world, a lasting peace and an absence of terrorism cannot be even approached.
MMFA is charting the number of times the media mentions Bush's "I don't think we can win it" remark against the number of times Teresa Heinz Kerry's "shove it" line turned up.
After three days, guess which one has attracted more media attention?
Sorry, mac, but "both feet" just ain't righteous. My comments have always been rather mild. All in all, the SwiftBoat folks' stuff is about the same as the folks who've raised a ruckus about Dubya's NG doings. Again, I DO have a right to raise a question from time to time--and I'm sure not whooping and hollering against Kerry.
Do I admire Dubya as a paragon of consistency? No. Sure don't. I just assume that when any politician's lips are moving, he's lying or flip-flopping on an issue, or "mis-stating" or some danged thing. I don't pay a lot of attention to what's said unless it's a new up-and-comer to the arena. Even with a newbie, "Trust but verify."
Over the last twenty or so years, Bush' record is out there; Kerry's record is out there. Doesn't matter what they say now, it won't be that way after the election--no matter which one wins.
Never has been.
madchemist, I should have been more clear: "...some mideasterners..." was meant to refer those now trying to kill us and/or our allies, such as Al Qaida, Hamas, et al. "Some" does not mean "all". In that context, I stand by what I said. When mullahs in the madrassahs are preaching to the young that they should kill the infidel, what else should I believe?
Yes, there are always mad megalomaniacs who hijack religious imagery to reach some despicable end. However, the mullahs are the ones whose unmitigated hate for the West cannot be quelled. That is, I believe that many, many (thought not all) of the footsoldiers of terror have been prompted to their vocation not out of ardent belief in religious extremism or obsessive hatred of the West's very existence, but rather out of frustration at their own socioeconomic and sociopolitical struggles, in whose creation the West has had a part.
The goal is not to convince the mullahs to cease their vitriolic speech, but rather to undercut the efficacy of that speech by making its call to action irrelevant to those who actually carry out terrorist acts. In other words, if people no longer see a connection between their plight and the actions of the West, they will have much less desire to heed the destructive commands of a few. While religious dogma may ignite to action these thousands of terrorists, it is a simplification to suggest that the dogma itself fuels them. Rather, as I have said, I think these individuals are fueled by an underlying desperation that results from very legitimate concerns about personal welfare. While the methods of redress are unjustifiable, the acts of wrongdoing by Western states is unfair.
If we can mend our mistakes and try at least not to harm the lives of the average citizen of any other country (without extraordinary reason), then we will rob the demagogues of much of their force. That will be one strong, effective step toward dramatically reducing terror. It will not be easy nor will it be simple, but it has the potential to be extremely powerful.