Posted by flargh on August 31, 2004 02:54 PM|Permalink
Comments
Interesting take on Bush's comments in the Yahoo article. Flip flop, though? Not really. If you really think about it, the comment to Matt Lauer ("I don't think you can win it,")is probably most accurate if he added the word "outright" to the end of the sentence. The idea that either of these candidates can do anything to completely eradicate terrorism as a tool of extremists in the world is silly. There will always be those who think their cause is more important than the lives or livelihood of others- whether it is Islamists, Eco-terrorists, or home grown hate groups.
But as far as winning this "war on terror" I would say that the continued succeses of breaking up various plots in the works is as close to a win as we're going to get. Thus, Bush's second statement, "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," should be considered a big win, if it continues to galvanize the rest of the world to reject and fight against those who practice those tactics.
Side note- I put you on my blogroll of adoptee bloggers. I'm somewhat new to the blog world, but have one that is mostly devoted to my adoption story. I am also interested in posts and or stories from other adoptees.
Bush and the Republicans have been spinning those comments so hard it's coming out "puree". "No, no, this is what he meant." "No, this is." Then Bush went on Rush Limbaugh's show to explain further.
The idea that you can kill all the terrorists is a popular one with Bush's supporters, but unrealistic. As a wise man posted on Fark.com the other day, trying to kill all the terrorists to get rid of terrorism is a bit like trying to solve world hunger by sending everyone in the world a sandwich. It's a short term solution at best.
Funny that Alphax should mention spin. Since I didn't see the interview, i decided to find a transcript to see exactly what Bush said. Looks to me like the media (which is obviously on Kerry's side) deliberately took this one small phrase out of context. Here is the entire question and answer:
Each side is likely to see bias in the media in favor of the other. As someone with more Libertarian interests than any other, I constantly see an anti-Libertarian -- or really, an anti-third party -- bias in coverage too. Big deal.
Marty, you have my blog confused with my mother's btw, I think -- I'm not an adoptee.
Silly me. What is your mother's blog? I could have sworn I got to you through an adoptee site. (Perhaps you mother's links to you an I got confused.)
And I agree with you that the non-bigparty parties don't get near the respect nor coverage they should from the media. It is unfortunate- they might actually grow in numbers if they were allowed in the arena. We would all benefit from a few new ideas.
The two party duopolily is a struggle for power and money, while I believe the third party endeavor is a struggle for wisdom.
The media on Kerry's side? Not a chance. Otherwise, he wouldn't be in a dead heat with a complete failure like Bush. Aside from Fox News and all the other News Corp. media outlets, which are the official propaganda outlets of the Bush Administration, other corporate news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and CBS News are leaning their way these days. In the past few weeks, they're making the New York Times look centrist. I've even heard reports of Republican butt kissing on PBS's McNeil-Leher report, who seem to take everything said this week at face value, when they didn't during the DNC.
Comments
Interesting take on Bush's comments in the Yahoo article. Flip flop, though? Not really. If you really think about it, the comment to Matt Lauer ("I don't think you can win it,")is probably most accurate if he added the word "outright" to the end of the sentence. The idea that either of these candidates can do anything to completely eradicate terrorism as a tool of extremists in the world is silly. There will always be those who think their cause is more important than the lives or livelihood of others- whether it is Islamists, Eco-terrorists, or home grown hate groups.
But as far as winning this "war on terror" I would say that the continued succeses of breaking up various plots in the works is as close to a win as we're going to get. Thus, Bush's second statement, "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," should be considered a big win, if it continues to galvanize the rest of the world to reject and fight against those who practice those tactics.
Side note- I put you on my blogroll of adoptee bloggers. I'm somewhat new to the blog world, but have one that is mostly devoted to my adoption story. I am also interested in posts and or stories from other adoptees.
Posted by: Marty Johnson | August 31, 2004 04:32 PM
Bush and the Republicans have been spinning those comments so hard it's coming out "puree". "No, no, this is what he meant." "No, this is." Then Bush went on Rush Limbaugh's show to explain further.
The idea that you can kill all the terrorists is a popular one with Bush's supporters, but unrealistic. As a wise man posted on Fark.com the other day, trying to kill all the terrorists to get rid of terrorism is a bit like trying to solve world hunger by sending everyone in the world a sandwich. It's a short term solution at best.
Posted by: Alphax | August 31, 2004 09:10 PM
Funny that Alphax should mention spin. Since I didn't see the interview, i decided to find a transcript to see exactly what Bush said. Looks to me like the media (which is obviously on Kerry's side) deliberately took this one small phrase out of context. Here is the entire question and answer:
TRANSCRIPT:
Lauer:
Posted by: Marty Johnson | September 1, 2004 10:52 AM
Each side is likely to see bias in the media in favor of the other. As someone with more Libertarian interests than any other, I constantly see an anti-Libertarian -- or really, an anti-third party -- bias in coverage too. Big deal.
Marty, you have my blog confused with my mother's btw, I think -- I'm not an adoptee.
Posted by: flargh | September 1, 2004 11:53 AM
Silly me. What is your mother's blog? I could have sworn I got to you through an adoptee site. (Perhaps you mother's links to you an I got confused.)
And I agree with you that the non-bigparty parties don't get near the respect nor coverage they should from the media. It is unfortunate- they might actually grow in numbers if they were allowed in the arena. We would all benefit from a few new ideas.
The two party duopolily is a struggle for power and money, while I believe the third party endeavor is a struggle for wisdom.
Posted by: Marty Johnson | September 1, 2004 01:11 PM
The media on Kerry's side? Not a chance. Otherwise, he wouldn't be in a dead heat with a complete failure like Bush. Aside from Fox News and all the other News Corp. media outlets, which are the official propaganda outlets of the Bush Administration, other corporate news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and CBS News are leaning their way these days. In the past few weeks, they're making the New York Times look centrist. I've even heard reports of Republican butt kissing on PBS's McNeil-Leher report, who seem to take everything said this week at face value, when they didn't during the DNC.
Posted by: Alphax | September 1, 2004 05:54 PM