Tuesday, October 12, 2004

COULD THIS BE THE "BIG OOPS"?

I suspect Kerry's quoted description of reducing terrorism to a "nuisance" level will generate a lot of debate today. It did yesterday, but yesterday was a sort-of holiday, so we'll see about what happens today.

First round in the debate goes to Rudy Giuliani. Let's see how quickly Kerry spins his response into a "though that's what I said that's not what I meant" response.

It does point out very clearly Kerry's political bias. While his gut may tell him "this is war" and military action is required, he still doesn't seem to have the stones required to be commander in chief.

To believe that ANY level of terrorism could be classified as a nuisance speaks volumes about Kerry's detached world view. Quel moron.

If Bush is smart, this will be the theme for the next three weeks -- "There ain't no nuance in nuisance, my fellow Americans."

UPDATE: The guys at Power Line have a good take on it, too.

AND THIS FROM JAMES LILEKS:

A nuisance?

I don’t want the definition of success of terrorism to be “it isn’t on the rise.”

I want the definition of success to be “free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven’t gotten around to kicking in the ass yet.”

I want the definition of success to mean a free Lebanon and free Iran and a Saudi Arabia that realizes there’s no point in funding the fundies. An Egypt that stops pouring out the Jew-hatred as a form of political novacaine to keep the citizens from turning their ire on their own government.

I want the definition of success to mean that Europe takes a stand against the Islamicist radicals in their midst before the Wahabbi poison is the only acceptable strain on the continent.

Mosquito bites are a nuisance.

Cable outages are a nuisance.

Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.

But that's not the key phrase. This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.

But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we losing. When we were there we died.

We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10?

We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again?

We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we’ve learned and done?

We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don’t want to go back there.

Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nighTmares are their dreams.

We have to get back to the place we were?

No. We have to go the place where they are.

AND THIS FROM THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR: Kerry is our Neville Chamberlain, assuring us that we are not really at war, that the seeming conflict is all a misunderstanding that can be cleared up with a little clever diplomacy, and that he will bring us "peace in our time."

AND THIS FROM WRETCHARD

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home