September 20, 2004

The War on Kerry

From Hastert's al Qaeda comment draws fire

House Speaker Dennis Hastert made a "silly" and "disgraceful" comment Saturday, according to Democrats, when the Republican claimed that al Qaida wanted John Kerry to win the November election.

"Hear that, America?" asked Hastert at his Saturday Illinois rally. "Only TERRORISTS vote for John Kerry! Are you a TERRORIST? Because if you want John Kerry to win, you must be a TERRORIST." Dick Cheney stood sagely in the background, motioning for the crowd to 'raise the roof'.

Hastert's spokesman, John Feehery, tried to clairfy the matter, saying that the comments "were consistent with the speaker's belief that John Kerry would be weak on the war . . . If John Kerry is perceived as being weak on the war, then of course, his election would be perceived as a good thing by the terrorists."

The statement continued: "It therefore follows that, because the terrorists hate the current administration, we must be doing a great job in the war on terror. Ipso facto, QED, vote Bush."

The allegation that John Kerry would be a weak leader in the war on terror is one that Kerry has responded to decisively, with fiery rhetoric along the lines of: "Well, what I think the American people really want, is to talk about the issues. You know, the talking points. The key matters. Concerns. Questions." Although Kerry's response doesn't really address the Bush campaign's accusations, or attempt to allay fears that potential swing voters might have, it sure does get a big cheer from the Democrats.

Sigh... I want the Republicans out, I just wish the Democrats could muster one compelling reason to vote for Kerry other than "he's not Bush" (which is all very well, but it's hardly going to make Bushites think twice, is it?).


At 21/9/04 10:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I have to say is "Remember 9-11?" After that tragic day, Bush critics all over the nation accused the White House of knowing that an attack was imminent and not acting to stop it. Everyone said, "There were warnings, and Bush didn't do anything!" And now that Bush is doing something to stop terrorism before another attack (hence- the war on terror), the Democrats are all crying, "You can't just strike
pre-emptively!" You just can't make everybody happy. Democrats like to "Bush bash". However, in all of the Bush bashing, nobody has anything with any substance to complain about! Has anybody noticed that in all of the controversial issues of this election (abortion and gay marriage) Kerry has said to leave the decision up to the states? He won't make a decision on these issues because no matter what his decision is, he's going to make someone mad. He's just a people-pleaser and a patronizer. He just tells the people what they want to hear. How can anybody trust a candidate like that? It's true that maybe Bush hasn't always made right decisions, but for heaven's sake, at least he can make a decision!

At 21/9/04 15:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry - gay marriage and abortion are "all" of the controversial issues? Since when? How about a President who pressures his people to find non-existant links between terrorism and Iraq, and use this and other unfounded excuses to get into the business of regime change? Some of us true-blue Americans prefer to work with the world, not against it.

I'm tired of being lied to by the President (about Iraq and soo sooo sooooo many other things)

I'm tired of our leaders trying hard to keep us all in a state of fear so they can more easily trod upon us

I'm tired of being in a country that is led by someone who still believes in trickle-down economics (didn't work then, won't work now)

I'm tired of being led by the haves who look after the haves and consider the have-nots something less than human

I'm tired of the right-wing fanatics around here who want to "return" us to our conservative Christian roots, and then get offended when they are compared to the Islamic states who want to return themselves to their conservative Islamic roots.

I'm tired of the hypocracy of it all...

But I do agree with Andrew that I wish I had a compelling reason to vote FOR someone (ANYONE), rather than just against Bush.

Then again, I live in a "Red State" (hrm... shades of Soviet era colors...) - so I'm effectively disenfranchised anyway. Maybe I'll vote Nader...

At 21/9/04 16:26, Blogger Andrew said...

Hmmm... "9-11". No, what was that? I don't remember it at all...

Just because Bush now has a swamp of rhetoric about the so-called "War on Terror", doesn't mean he is actually "doing something" about terrorism (I don't count the war in Iraq because, well, that really had very little to do with terrorism in the end, didn't it?).

"However, in all of the Bush bashing, nobody has anything with any substance to complain about!" [I don't even know where to begin with this one...]

Oh, and God forbid Kerry should be nothing but a 'people-pleaser'! Did I miss something, or is pleasing people not the goal of a democratically elected public official?!

And frankly, I'd rather he left issues such as gay marriage up to the individual states, because that way the bigots can have their way and the rest of the country can have their way and then-- gasp!-- maybe everybody in America can enjoy some of that self-evident freedom that we're always hearing about.

It's true that maybe Bush hasn't always made right decisions, but for heaven's sake, at least he can make a decision! By that logic:

It's true that maybe Saddam Hussein hasn't always made right decisions (ie. torture, mass murder, etc.), but at least he can make a decision (he sure went for that mass murder!).



Post a Comment

<< Home