Much Ado About Nothing
By Monte Kuligowski (09/10/04)
The liberal mainstream media scrambled to report the big story. Their cameras stood poised, ready to get John Edwards’ take. Fingers of liberal pundits have been blazing over their keys. The printing presses are in high-speed mode.
So what’s the big story? Surely you’ve heard: President Bush is an indecisive flip-flopper, just like John Kerry. First he said we can’t win the war on terror, and then he “recanted” and said we can. The Democrats really have Mr. Bush in a quandary now. Or do they?
On the same day the Republican National Convention kicked off, the president was discussing the war on terror with NBC’s Matt Lauer on the Today show. President Bush affirmed that, “you cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.” When asked, “can we win?” Bush responded, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”
The next day, the president clarified his 10 second sound bite to assure Americans that we are winning and can win the war on terror. Of course, headlines everywhere read something like, “Bush recants his statement.” Nevertheless, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that both statements are plainly agreeable and can be consolidated into one: We can never completely stop every suicide attack planned, but the administration is protecting America and we will continue to win the war on terror.
For a thinking person, no discrepancies are apparent in recognizing that the war on terror cannot be won in the traditional sense. As John McCain aptly noted, “what [the president] meant was, we’re never going to have a peace signing on the Missouri.” We’re not fighting a traditional enemy. Our enemies aren’t from one country; they operate covertly out of several. The only way to completely win the war on terror would be to wipe every jihad oriented Muslim off the face of the earth. Is this the standard the Democrats are holding Bush to?
There are times when it’s just better to hold your words, lest you run the risk of making a complete fool of yourself. With that in mind, let’s consider John Edwards’ take on Bush’s Today show sound bite:
“After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can’t win the war on terrorism. This is no time to declare defeat – it won’t be easy and it won’t be quick, but we have a comprehensive long-term plan to make America safer. And that’s a difference.”
I don’t recall the president saying anything that remotely resembles declaring defeat, do you?
And as far as Edwards saying, “it won’t be easy and it won’t be quick,” how does he know? Where is he drawing his experience from? With all due respect to Edwards, I’m sure he’s really good at what he does, but he’s just a medical malpractice lawyer turned politician – and he hasn’t even completed one term as a senator.
Edwards goes on to say that his ticket has a “comprehensive long-term plan to make America safer.” Well, that’s great. How about sharing this plan with the rest of the country Mr. Edwards? There are scores of people who are eager to know the specific details of this comprehensive long-term plan.
And as far as keeping America safer, considering that no attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11, don’t you mean safe, rather than safer?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Monte Kuligowski
