Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Winning the war on terror

I'd just like to announce that I find the current controversy about who believes that, and who is correct about whether, we can "win the war on terror", annoying. It looks like the closer we get to November, the more meaningless and inane the rhetoric will become.


  1. True, and thus it has pretty much always been. Going back to the first truly contested presidential election in 1796, all of the campaigns have been filled wiht half-truths, mud-slinging, and ad hominem attacks.

    Issues? What are they?

  2. You know what irritates me the most about this? John Kerry is acting way more contemptibly than George Bush. Bush made the perfectly sensible statement that there's no way you can "win" a "war" that isn't against an actual enemy, and that what he hoped to accomplish was to make the world a less hospitable place for terrorists, not to "win" in the sense of establishing a treaty with terms. (The wisdom, in light of this, of calling it a "war on terror" and using warrish rhetoric, not to mention the policies he's pursuing to supposedly make the world less friendly to terrorists, are certainly debatable, but the sentence he uttered was perfectly sensible.) Then Kerry jumps in all, "Bush said he can't win the war on terror! Well let me assure you, as a Vietnam war veteran, I CAN WIN THE WAR ON TERROR!" It's just such an asinine statement that it makes me even less inclined to hold my nose and vote for Kerry. Goddammit.


  3. There is not, and never has been, a war on terror. So, yes, it is annoying as well as disturbing to see that everyone in the political "mainstream" is obligated to pay homage to such nonsense.