|
stork daddy
|
it said....9 out of 10 terrorists agree...ANYBODY but BUSH. i don't think anyone would argue that Bush's policy has had some effect on the terrorist...the question really is whether it was cost efficient in terms of money, human life, and future safety. I mean sure if you just go in shooting and tripping and pissing yourself like Yosemite Sam having a seizure, you'll fuck enough shit up that eventually you'll fuck some of the terrorists shit up. The question is whether the shit he's fucking up is worth the shit he arguably fucks up for the terrorists. I say arguably to underscore a couple of distinctions. Primarily, the war in Iraq was not against terrorism, and it's arguable whether or not it was even against constructs supporting terrorism. Even if I assume that it did make terrorism less likely (something not usually demonstrated by an INCREASE in car bombings) I think there were clearly more direct routes to take to combating terrorism. Then again maybe they were trying to say we need oil to run our cavebusting missle shooters. So I guess I can see how Iraq would be related to terror. Secondly, there's no evidence that an international coalition would be a less effective way to combat terrorism than to do it on our lonesome . Although I guess you could count our enlistment of the glorious world power of England as forming a coalition. Too bad this war isn't in the year of our lord 1563 to assert dominance over the most discharitable Prussian foe. And our actions pretty much guaranteed that we would be going it alone. We already know French people are rude, so do we reallly want them letting security risks board planes bound for the US just out of spite? Laughing their jaunty french laugh while they shrug and say, "he told me it was normal for burqhas to tick". I guess it's just interesting how bumperstickers and other propoganda are effectively used to associate candidates with traits or results that aren't really supported by the evidence. Either that or they jump to conclusions not supported by the premises even when those premises are well founded. I mean look at Kerry's arguments too. They really are intuition pumps. Imagine if you will, that the nation is a swiftboat careening down the swirling waters of Vietnam - who do you want to be your captain? umm right. I'm all for rhetoric, but it's sad that they feel such obvious ploys and blanket are convincing, in the absence of the substantive arguments required to support them. I guess that's what fits on bumperstickers though. If Bush supporters want a bumpersticker - I think one that says "Bush has shown his character most clearly in his Defending U.S. Ideals." That could get a little long though so perhaps you could use a catchy acronymn so we always associate Bush with Defending U.S. Ideals. DUI would work. Or here's another catchphrase that could underscore a more telling policy (since everyone is against terrorism) in Bush's support for a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage: "Bush and Dick: It's only Natural"
I don't know. Just some ideas. As to Kerry, I advise you stop letting the argument procede on Bush's terms. If it's about who would be more fun to invite to a cocktail party - You have to overcome both Bush's infectious shit-eating weasel laugh, and the fact that you remind everyone of Lurch from the Addams Family. But if you focus more carefully on traits relevant to the office in question, especially as regards policies where the traits of Bush have caused negative effects, you'll have a much better chance. Make sure everyone knows that Bush belongs in a frathouse not the white house. Saluting doesn't really accomplish this as much as talking about what you'd do differently. And every now and then you can throw in that even in Texas they use Heinz ketchup.
|
040831
|
