|
In January 2004, John Kerry revealed his September 10th mindset regarding terrorism when he said that he sees terrorism as "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." That's the same Clintonian approach to the problem that allowed al-Qaeda to grow unchecked before 9/11. Despite his recent strong statements about fighting the war on terror (almost always followed by a "but," however) Kerry still doesn't seem to understand the seriousness of the war we're fighting. In a recent New York Times Magazine interview, Kerry stated, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." A nuisance? When were terrorists ever a "nuisance" to the innocent people they murdered? Could Kerry really be saying that it was right to ignore them as long as they only bombed other countries... and that it would be that way again? How can we ever go back to the ignorant, blind "place we were" before 9/11... and would we want to? What exactly is a "nuisance level" of terrorism, anyway? How were terrorists only a nuisance before 9/11, when they suddenly (in Kerry's world) became a threat? How can you tell when your terrorists are at that mythical, tolerable September 10th level? A handy guide might help. Nuisance: Terrorists who set a flaming bag of dog crap on the doormat, then ring the bell and run away. Nuisance: Terrorists who give their victims a wedgie. Nuisance: Terrorists who wear outrageous clothing to make a statement. Nuisance: Terrorists who demand your lunch money. Nuisance: Terrorists who take pennies from the "take a penny" dish at the 7-11 without ever leaving one. Nuisance: Terrorists who steal cars for a joyride. Nuisance: Terrorists who skip school. Nuisance: Terrorists with spitballs. Nuisance: Terrorists who paint graffiti on buildings. Nuisance: Terrorists who send 'spam' email. Nuisance: Terrorists who blast loud music while you are trying to sleep. Nuisance: Terrorists who spend their time hanging out at the mall. Perhaps when terrorists are reduced to the threat level of high school juvenile delinquents, we can treat them as such. As long as they continue to plot mass murder and destruction, I suggest we continue to fight them -- and those who train, harbor and support them -- exactly as we've begun. |
| Mad Mike October 11, 2004 01:35 PM PDT This was perfect, as an aquaintence sent me something last night, that he titled "thinking outside the box", and it conveyed the moronic contention that somehow all of "this" would diffuse itself if we simply put it in it's proper context, i.e.; "criminal activity". The article went on to compare Islamic fundementalism with the mafia, saying "it will always be there (but) it can be contained. The link he provided was: http://www.truthout.org/docs04/101104J.shtml | ||
| JM October 11, 2004 06:28 PM PDT You have to love places like truthout.org and commondreams.org. They're just a hair short of MoveOn.org as far as integrity is concerned, yet the Liberals treat anything posted there as Holy Writ. It's because they use the words "truth" and "common dreams", you see, so they must be honest! Maybe I should have thought of that and called this site UltimateCommonTrueDreams or something. Then again, people would think I sell patchouli oil and beads here. | ||
| JM October 11, 2004 06:38 PM PDT Ha, that's a reprint of the very NY Times Magazine interview I mentioned in the post -- thanks! Kerry's utter dilemma about how to spin what kind of water he drinks is hysterical! The URL is: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101104J.shtml | ||
| skye October 11, 2004 07:32 PM PDT What?!?!!! You DON'T sell patchouli oil and beads???? **SIGH** | ||
| JM October 11, 2004 09:32 PM PDT No cloved cigarettes for you, one year! LOL | ||
| Jamie October 11, 2004 11:16 PM PDT There is SO much b-s in that article, yet it points out several of the problems that Kerry faces. This sentence is very telling: "The man who would be the first Vietnam veteran to occupy the Oval Office has doggedly tried to merge both worldviews, repeatedly vowing to fight both a more fierce and a more restrained, multifaceted war on terror."..... HUH? More fierce AND more restrained? And I am SO sick of hearing Kerry say "Bush had no plan to win the peace". Just what would a plan to "win the peace" consist of? | ||
| JM October 11, 2004 11:45 PM PDT If I tried to be fierce AND restrained at the same time, my head would explode. And the only way to "win the peace" is to defeat the enemy. Kerry can't figure out how to answer a question about what brand of bottled water he drinks, what would a featherweight like that do against Iran, North Korea and al-Qaeda? They have to be licking their lips in anticipation of a Kerry victory. | ||
| SimplySue October 14, 2004 10:57 PM PDT You have it sooooooooo right! I totally agree with you! Dont people remember 911?? | ||
| justpete October 15, 2004 12:28 PM PDT Terrorism is a technique of combat. It will never be eliminated. Thanks to Bush and his sheeple, it is not only increasing, but is far more acceptable as a technique of combat. Oh and hell, Brent Scowcroft says the same thing. It is plain logic, but there is not much of that in the neo-fascist crowd to which you obviously belong. Thanks leftist. | ||
| JM October 15, 2004 12:45 PM PDT I love it when they get incoherent with rage. | ||
| Leave a Comment: |