Tweet
WRITTEN BY MY SAME FRIEND
KERRY AND MEDIA EXPLOIT BUSH NUANCE
Here again is further proof that if a conservative
gives liberals what they ask for he ends up a two time
loser. First you lose because you give something you
didn’t really want to give, and second you lose
because whatever you gave will immediately be turned
against you (unless of course you are a moderate,
which means you support abortion on demand).
For months now, all we have heard is how simplistic
Bush’s world view is compared to John Kerry’s world
view, which is much more complex and full of nuance.
Kerry understands that there are gray areas in life
and that a black and white or right and wrong world
view will only alienate our sophisticated French and
German allies, without whose help we are doomed to
failure. Kerry told us how he will execute a more
sensitive war on terror, and while we all had a good
chuckle at that ridiculous concept, the media did
three and a half reverse somersaults with a twist to
explain the nuance of that statement to all of us
idiots. Maybe if the beheadings by Islamic terrorists
were not so fresh on our minds we would have been more
easily swayed. After all Axis of Evil sounds so
harsh. “Axis of disgruntled nations upset with
American foreign policy” would show a much deeper
understanding of why they hate and want to kill us.
Timing is everything and I have to say that for George
W. Bush to choose the first day of the Republican
convention to show nuance was a brilliant mistake.
Maybe he got tired of being called a simpleton for
three years, but he must have forgotten who he is
talking to. When Matt Lauer asked regarding the war
on terror, “Can we win?” all Bush had to give was a
simple “YES, we can and we will!” Matt would have
given his “your such an idiot” smile and that would
have been it. Unfortunately, Bush said what he
believes which is “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”. Upset that Bush showed more nuance and
understanding of the complex issue of terrorism, Kerry
and his “I’ve got great hair” V.P. immediately
switched from gray to black and white. “The war on
terrorism is absolutely winnable” declared Edwards on
“Nightline”. He hasn’t been this sure since
channeling the baby girl asking for a cesarean in the
lawsuit that won his millions (it’s only a fetus
during an abortion),
Imagine for a second that John Kerry would have given
the same answer to the question “Can we win the war on
terror?” The media would be showering Kerry with
accolades, praising his deep understanding of the
causes of terrorism. They would point out that it is
indeed the conditions of the poor Islamic countries
that breed terrorism. These conditions of course are
a direct result of oppressive U.S. policies in the
Middle East and until we stop supporting the Israeli
“occupation”, the Islamic world will hate and want to
kill us. Except that the conditions that Bush was
referring to are the despotic, totalitarian
governments of the Middle East that use the U.S. as a
giant piñata, which will shower their world with
Allah’s blessings once it is forever broken.
I say Bush’s answer was a mistake because he forgot
for a second that whenever a conservative says
something that could be easily twisted against him the
liberals and the media (I know that’s redundant) will
pull out their corkscrews, faster than you can say
Chubby Checkers. Finally, Bush admits he started
something he can’t finish and now they got him and
they’ll show him what it’s like to walk a mile in John
Kerry’s flip flops. First he says we have to win the
war on terror, and now he says we can’t win the war on
terror. Aha! There you have it. Of course Kerry’s and
Edwards response was immediately heralded from the
mountaintops. Edwards, “This is no time to declare
defeat” and Kerry, “Is that what Karl Rove means when
he calls for steady leadership?”
Never mind that in the same paragraph in which Bush
says “I don’t think you can win it “ he also says “I
believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the
world that are now non-democratic and I think it’s
necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate.”
And this brings me to the brilliant part of Bush’s
mistake. For the next few days the President will
have to explain what he meant, while the media prints
headlines like “Bush backtracks on terror war” and
“Bush recants, says terror war will be won” and so on.
(Again if it were Kerry, the headlines would read
“Kerry explains complex ideology of terror” and “Kerry
understands we are fighting for hearts and minds”) And
again their arrogance will be their undoing, because
we are not the morons they think we are. We know that
what Bush meant is that we cannot defeat an ideology;
because if we could communism would be extinct fifteen
years after winning the Cold War, instead of being
taught at our Universities as the answer to greed and
corporate oppression. We also understand that terror
is a tool used by Islamists who want to bring about
Islamic law and rule to the whole world and that even
if we wipe out every single terrorist in the world all
it takes is one suicide bomber, or two ruthless
snipers or even a disgruntled postal worker to bring
it all back. Saying we can win the war on terror is
like saying that we can win the war on crime, or on
drugs, or on poverty. There will always be criminals,
junkies and poor people because without them the
liberals would cease to exist.
So, thank you liberal media for asking George W. Bush
to explain himself, because that’s when he’s at his
best, speaking plainly and clearly. But if you really
wanted to know when the war on terror will end, all
you had to do was listen to what he told Lauer in the
same interview: “I don’t have any definite end. But I
tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it’s the beginning of the end for these
extremists”. And I bet you a copy of Ann Coulter’s
next book, “How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must”,
that Bush will spend the next four years making sure
Iraq and Afghanistan become and remain free countries.
And that, my liberal friend, is how we will win the
war on terror.
KERRY AND MEDIA EXPLOIT BUSH NUANCE
Here again is further proof that if a conservative
gives liberals what they ask for he ends up a two time
loser. First you lose because you give something you
didn’t really want to give, and second you lose
because whatever you gave will immediately be turned
against you (unless of course you are a moderate,
which means you support abortion on demand).
For months now, all we have heard is how simplistic
Bush’s world view is compared to John Kerry’s world
view, which is much more complex and full of nuance.
Kerry understands that there are gray areas in life
and that a black and white or right and wrong world
view will only alienate our sophisticated French and
German allies, without whose help we are doomed to
failure. Kerry told us how he will execute a more
sensitive war on terror, and while we all had a good
chuckle at that ridiculous concept, the media did
three and a half reverse somersaults with a twist to
explain the nuance of that statement to all of us
idiots. Maybe if the beheadings by Islamic terrorists
were not so fresh on our minds we would have been more
easily swayed. After all Axis of Evil sounds so
harsh. “Axis of disgruntled nations upset with
American foreign policy” would show a much deeper
understanding of why they hate and want to kill us.
Timing is everything and I have to say that for George
W. Bush to choose the first day of the Republican
convention to show nuance was a brilliant mistake.
Maybe he got tired of being called a simpleton for
three years, but he must have forgotten who he is
talking to. When Matt Lauer asked regarding the war
on terror, “Can we win?” all Bush had to give was a
simple “YES, we can and we will!” Matt would have
given his “your such an idiot” smile and that would
have been it. Unfortunately, Bush said what he
believes which is “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”. Upset that Bush showed more nuance and
understanding of the complex issue of terrorism, Kerry
and his “I’ve got great hair” V.P. immediately
switched from gray to black and white. “The war on
terrorism is absolutely winnable” declared Edwards on
“Nightline”. He hasn’t been this sure since
channeling the baby girl asking for a cesarean in the
lawsuit that won his millions (it’s only a fetus
during an abortion),
Imagine for a second that John Kerry would have given
the same answer to the question “Can we win the war on
terror?” The media would be showering Kerry with
accolades, praising his deep understanding of the
causes of terrorism. They would point out that it is
indeed the conditions of the poor Islamic countries
that breed terrorism. These conditions of course are
a direct result of oppressive U.S. policies in the
Middle East and until we stop supporting the Israeli
“occupation”, the Islamic world will hate and want to
kill us. Except that the conditions that Bush was
referring to are the despotic, totalitarian
governments of the Middle East that use the U.S. as a
giant piñata, which will shower their world with
Allah’s blessings once it is forever broken.
I say Bush’s answer was a mistake because he forgot
for a second that whenever a conservative says
something that could be easily twisted against him the
liberals and the media (I know that’s redundant) will
pull out their corkscrews, faster than you can say
Chubby Checkers. Finally, Bush admits he started
something he can’t finish and now they got him and
they’ll show him what it’s like to walk a mile in John
Kerry’s flip flops. First he says we have to win the
war on terror, and now he says we can’t win the war on
terror. Aha! There you have it. Of course Kerry’s and
Edwards response was immediately heralded from the
mountaintops. Edwards, “This is no time to declare
defeat” and Kerry, “Is that what Karl Rove means when
he calls for steady leadership?”
Never mind that in the same paragraph in which Bush
says “I don’t think you can win it “ he also says “I
believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the
world that are now non-democratic and I think it’s
necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate.”
And this brings me to the brilliant part of Bush’s
mistake. For the next few days the President will
have to explain what he meant, while the media prints
headlines like “Bush backtracks on terror war” and
“Bush recants, says terror war will be won” and so on.
(Again if it were Kerry, the headlines would read
“Kerry explains complex ideology of terror” and “Kerry
understands we are fighting for hearts and minds”) And
again their arrogance will be their undoing, because
we are not the morons they think we are. We know that
what Bush meant is that we cannot defeat an ideology;
because if we could communism would be extinct fifteen
years after winning the Cold War, instead of being
taught at our Universities as the answer to greed and
corporate oppression. We also understand that terror
is a tool used by Islamists who want to bring about
Islamic law and rule to the whole world and that even
if we wipe out every single terrorist in the world all
it takes is one suicide bomber, or two ruthless
snipers or even a disgruntled postal worker to bring
it all back. Saying we can win the war on terror is
like saying that we can win the war on crime, or on
drugs, or on poverty. There will always be criminals,
junkies and poor people because without them the
liberals would cease to exist.
So, thank you liberal media for asking George W. Bush
to explain himself, because that’s when he’s at his
best, speaking plainly and clearly. But if you really
wanted to know when the war on terror will end, all
you had to do was listen to what he told Lauer in the
same interview: “I don’t have any definite end. But I
tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it’s the beginning of the end for these
extremists”. And I bet you a copy of Ann Coulter’s
next book, “How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must”,
that Bush will spend the next four years making sure
Iraq and Afghanistan become and remain free countries.
And that, my liberal friend, is how we will win the
war on terror.
I eat spinach
Comment