« Game Seven | Main | The Jesurgislac Memorial Terry Pratchett Open Thread »

October 20, 2004

Comments

Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star argue otherwise, but let's not rehash ancient history again.

In rather more recent history, Kerry's solid work against BCCI also argues otherwise. There are far more successful ways of being tough and aggressive against terrorists than bombing or invading countries, and shutting down the money is one of them.

I was wondering why this wasn't a major theme of Kerry's campaign, but - via Political Animal - apparently Robert Shrum thinks Americans are too dumb to understand it.

"You can't talk about that because people think you're talking about the BBC," Bob Shrum, Kerry's top adviser, told one senior staffer. "Why were you investigating British TV?" (cite)

I know the theory is that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" but sometimes I really wish some politician would have the guts to prove this theory wrong.

The GOP used a series of talking points about Kerry's Senate voting record back in February, which I've seen cited all round the right-wing blogosphere as accepted fact, though an examination of Kerry's real voting record would have corrected these misconceptions in short order.

But then, Dick Cheney is the guy who believes that if he just keeps saying that there were WMD in Iraq and a proven connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, enough people will believe him to make a difference. Cheney is certainly working on the assumption that you can't underestimate the intelligence of the American people. I hope November 3 proves him wrong.

excellent comment Jes!

The important thing is that you don't go around scaring the voters. Bush doesn't like that.

Er. . unless you're scaring them into voting for him. That's cool.

Given the complete failure of his government to prevent dangerous nuclear proliferation (North Korea, the Khan affair, Iran's nuclear program, the recent pilfering of nuclear equipment from Iraq, and the enormous terrorist-making machine now running in Iraq), for Cheney to actually say this, well, I have a lot of admiration for his application of the big lie strategy.

To paraphrase Josh Marshall from last year, it's like the arsonist burning down your house telling you not to let the firefighters in because they're dangerous.

"North Korea, the Khan affair, Iran's nuclear program, the recent pilfering of nuclear equipment from Iraq, and the enormous terrorist-making machine now running in Iraq"

3 of those 4 were well under way years before Bush came to office.

Which one of the five points D-U-P named are you ignoring?

3 of those 4 were well under way years before Bush came to office.

Even if that were true, what have they done to rectify the situation?

And could Cheney be then excused for making the claim that all that stands between nuclear terrorism and the American electorate is the Bush adminstration, despite an awful scorecard on the issue?

The answer to your question depends upon how similar Kerry's proposed programs are to the failed ones from the past.

The answer to your question depends upon how similar Kerry's proposed programs are to the failed ones from the past.

Failed ones? I don't recall any terrorist nuclear attacks. Or do you mean failed programs to keep nuclear materials out of the hands ... of...

Actually, Sebastian, what do you mean?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad