No.
I'm a nuisance. Just ask my ex-wife.
Fleas are a nuisance.
Mosquitos are a nuisance.
Those guys who slide flyers underneath your windshield wiper blade while you're shopping for groceries are nuisances.
The loud-talking cell phone guy at the next table is a nuisance.
The beautiful woman who won't go out with me is a nui...probably has a very good head on her shoulders.
A guy who blows up kids to make a political point qualifies as something other than a nuisance.
My god, is Kerry trying to throw this election or what? He gets a bit of a bounce from the debates and then comes out with this?
He wants to go back to a time when terrorism was just a nuisance. Just when was that, exactly? I really want to know, when was terrorism just a nuisance? I guess I could understand it if he said he wanted to reduce terrorism to a nuisance, but he said he wanted to go "back" to such a time. What time could he have meant, I wonder?
Was it when those sailors were blown up on the USS Cole? Was that a nuisance? How about the marines in the Khobar towers? Were their murders just a nuisance? Maybe Kerry was tlaking about 1993, when the terrorists tried to take out the WTC the first time, and barely failed. I guess since they parked in the wrong spot, they were just a nuisance. How about the flight over Lockerbee Scotland? Was the murder of all those people just as nuisance?
I wasn't planning another political post, but Jeebus! How damned arrogant can one man be?
And I'm sorry, but I don't think I can ever look at terrorism like prostitution or gambling. I mean, maybe I'm not nuanced enough, but somehow, I think there's a clear difference between some shmoe paying for sex and some Islamofascist blowing up a school bus for Allah.
Call me crazy.
By the way, how well can this play for Kerry internationally? After all, his basic point is that terrorism is only a real problem if they're hitting us on our soil. Isn't that in essense a big "Screw You" to the rest of the world? Kinda makes it tough to build alliances, wouldn't you think? You know, for a guy who's claiming he should be president because he can build true coalitions, he sure is ticking a lot of folks off.
Posted by Rich at October 13, 2004 12:15 AM | TrackBackan excerpt from juancole.com:
Monday, October 11, 2004
How Would Cheney Complete the "War on Terror"?
The "war on terror" of Bush-Cheney is a smokescreen for naked American imperial aggression. The sad story of how Iraq posed no threat either to the US or to any of its neighbors, despite high-decibel claims to the contrary for two years by Bush, Cheney and their acolytes, will be repeated in the case of Syria and Iran if Bush and Cheney are reelected. They hope that their project of overthrowing governments in the region will go smoothly, but they do not really care, since even an Iran and a Syria in chaos is a net gain from their point of view. Chaos creates "terror" and justifies further US involvement, aggression and control. It is inconvenient for the rest of us, but then they insist, unlike John Kerry, that we live with the nuisances they are creating.
read the rest. it's pretty accurate.
Posted by: howie on October 13, 2004 4:46 PM