First of all, I really, really hate that damn word. GAH! Ok, now that that’s off my chest… it would appear as though you may have missed a rather important development coming from the Bush camp. Despite frequent and vehement assertions to the contrary, Bush now concedes that the War on Terror is unwinnable. So there are 3 conclusions to be drawn from that, to wit: [ul][li]It’s irrelevant whether or not Kerry “has the political backbone to win the war on terrorism,” since even Bush acknowledges that it can’t be won. [Cite][/li][li]Bush’s contradictory statements make him appear to be a “flip-flopper.”[/li][li]Bush talks a good game, but he basically says whatever he thinks his immediate audience wants to hear. [/ul] [/li][QUOTE=msmith537]
It becomes a military matter when there are countries involved that harbor terrorism and pursue development of WMDs. It is hopelessly naive to think that you can stop terrorists simply with diplomacy and traditional law enforcement when they can train and operate with impunity in countries like Afghanistan.
[/quote]
So are we supposed to wage military action against ourselves, seeing as how the terrorists who executed the 9/11 attacks, operated and trained right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.?
As the thread you linked too indicates, it is debatable exactly what GW means by this. You are totally mischaracterizing the thread by stating this:
TERRORISTS can be beaten, even if ultimately TERRORISM can’t be completely erraticated. From your own cite:
So, it DOES matter if one or the other has ‘the political backbone to win the war on terrorism’…even if terrorism itself can never be completely eliminated. As was stated in the WoT thread you linked too, this is all an arguement over goverment-ese symantecs.
And this:
Bush may very well be a ‘flip-flopper’ (in fact, he certainly is…see Steel Tarrifs), but to me its pretty tortured to use this as an example. I didn’t get in the other thread because I found the arguements ridiculously tortured in fact…and I’m not even a Bush supporter.
And this:
I think this is one thing that anyone who actually follows GW would roll their eyes at. I’d say one of GW’s FAILINGS is that he DOESN’T do this a bit more…i.e. he seems to have his own agenda sometimes and doesn’t really seem to give a shit what the majority of the people want.
Pssst, xtisme, it really wasn’t necessary to pick apart my post line by line, seeing as how my entire point was to show how ridiculous msmith537’s “concerns” were about John Kerry. This whole “flip-flopping” thing is utter rubbish, as is whether we can win some abstract “War on Terror/ism.”
Fighting terrorism as some kind of “war” is never going to work, no matter who’s in office.
They’ve both “flip-flopped” (as I expect most adults on the planet have – even I have! I used to be pro-death penalty and now I vehemently oppose it. OMG, I’m a FLIP-FLOPPER, call out the Guard and have me hauled away!)
And they’re both politicians, so they both (gasp!) say things that pander to their audience. This is not news and it is not a point either for or against either party.
And I thought the absurdity of suggesting we take military action against ourselves was painfully obvious. Perhaps since you didn’t get it, I should throw a rolleyes your way?
I’ve heard this argument often from Democrats. Probably because it is a defence against a charge that Republicans tend to make. But I think it misses the point of the charge. Flip Flopping is not the same thing as changing ones mind. Especially not on important principles. The charge is meant to show that one candidate changes his position in accordance with the political winds. Not, to do the people’s bidding, but in order to fool the people into thinking that he will. What we need is both a candidate who believes what we believe and believes these things himself. It does us little good to elect a candidate, go back to our lives, and have him at the beck and call of lobbiests and protesters. We would have to be perpetual political animals to run our government.
Is it possible that understanding this charge is a difference between [d]emocrats and [r]epublicans? In other words, if you think America should be a democracy you don’t mind politicians who change their positions at the public’s whim. If you prefer a republic you would rather have principled office holders who only need to be evaluated every few years.
I’m not picking on you, Shayna, and this is probably a hijack so I’ll bow out. But I’ve seen this so many times that I thought I’d say something.
I don’t disagree with you, pervert. Notice how I said I hate that damn word, and how I put it in quotation marks. I think the charge of “flip-flopping” against John Kerry is absurd. I haven’t seen a scrap of evidence that shows that any modification of his positions over time has been for any reason other than he legitimately changed his mind, or it really wasn’t a “flip-flop” to begin with, as his opponents attempt to portray it (that whole, “he was for it before he was against it” crap). And when people toss around the accusation as loosely as they do, it manages to fit every single politician (and probably human being) on the planet.
Frankly, if either candidate could be accused of “changing with the political winds,” as opposed to having a legitimate change of heart in this case, it would be George W. Bush long before it would be John Kerry, which is evidenced by his all of a sudden softening his previously very firm stance that he will win the “War on Terror,” which now he says can’t be won. And his pandering to his audience during the 2000 debates, with regard to claiming to be a strong supporter of a Patients’ Bill of Rights, and then steadfastly fighting against it when he got into office, is a perfect example of saying what his audience wanted to hear in order to fool them so he could win.
I do not charge that all politicians do this, simply because they’re politicians. But politicians can be expected to tailor what they say to the audience they’re addressing. That’s not even in the same ballpark of offensiveness as the former.
I’m sorry if I haven’t been clear. If my position still doesn’t make sense, by all means, ask me what I mean and I’ll try to clarify.
Let me echo xtisme’s statement :rolleyes:
If you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand why military action may be required in one situation while traditional law enforcement can be used in another, there is not point arguing with you.
And let me echo my earlier statement that that comment was intentionally absurd. If you do not have the intellectual capacity to read, there is no point in debating with you.
I still have the impression that being a Senator is very different from being president. Being president will force Kerry to take a stand... while being a senator its easy to be the "protestor". I think he has backbone... but he gave his intelectual side more leeway before. As president he will be fighting for country and career. (Plus I don't think Bush has backbone... just enthusiasm and crusader mentality... its easy when you don't care about the consequences.)
I think you confuse diplomacy with being "nice". Or "police work" as opposed to military action necessarily. Naturally diplomacy with Afganistan was useless. Its when you use diplomacy to unite allies and to get a united front against foes that you get legitimacy and "softpower" and consensus. Bush was too forceful and Iraq invasion came across naturally as unilateral. This fuels insurgents and terrorist causes. Some more diplomacy helps in the "propaganda" and ideas war. Currently any democratic country's government being too supportive of Bush is a ticket to losing an election... that doesn't speak to well about Bush's diplomacy.
Police work is about working intel, military intel and police efforts. To kill a terrorist you have to find him. Collaboration and info exchange is important. Once you locate you can bomb, arrest, follow, kill, etc...
As for the freaks and wierdos… you should check out the people supporting Bush in Orkut and other places.
Help me with this one… didn’t Bush say he wouldn’t use the tragedy of 9/11 for political purposes ?
The RNC is all about 9/11 and using it as political currency ! Could this be used as a negative point against Bush when presented to independent or moderates ?
As for Kerry flip-flopping, the diligent statisticians at Out-of-My-Hat, Inc. tell me that 99.7% of this is due to the fact that he’s a United States Senator. Legislators make deals, bills get revised, a Senator will vote for one version but not the other–there’s nothing seriously out of place here. I bet Bush has strong-armed a Congressman to change his vote at some point. Oy.
[Out-of-My-Hat, Inc. is not a real organization. It used to be my hat, then I lost the hat.]
Conservatism’s biggest friend is apathy, or intertia. So I don’t believe it needs a particular argument to convert a Bush voter.
What it needs instead, is an interest in future policy and present results. Try seeing if someone could be stimulated to take an interest, because this is important.
The Bush administration has essentially failed on its major policies. For example I don’t care if ‘Bush lied’ about Iraq*. The fact that he plainly got it wrong is sufficient to render his presidency inadequate. At that level you don’t get the chance to keep making big mistakes.
Fortunately many people do take an interest in the closing stages of the campaign. They do it without much special persuasion because at the end of the day enough people are responsible. Until the late stages though it is rather bothersome. That trend of late deciders is another reason why I believe Bush is toast.
*did