Scott McClellan is wrong.

Denys


-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Paul Christidis
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 5:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Cheap Shots, Politics, and Polarization







HP-3000 Systems Discussion <[log in to unmask]> wrote on 08/10/2004
02:05:17 PM:

> After a lengthy diatribe Wirt quoted President Bush, probably in the
> hope of underlining what he thought of the President.  The quote is:
>
> "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
> stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
> neither do we."
>
>      --George W. Bush  2004/08/05
<< snip >>

> The quote from President Bush shows that his administration knows we
are
> at war with these terrorists.  His administration is on a war footing,
> trying to think of any and all ways in which terrorists could inflict
> damage to our country and work to prevent it.  His administration is
not
> lacking in imagination.  The Right, if you want it simply, knows we
are
> at war and we are fighting it.  The Right wants to defeat the
terrorists
> and their sponsors, far from our shores.  They want to prevent acts of
> terrorism before they occur.


Oh great priest of the Oracle of Bush! Thanks for explaining what our
president meant in his above mentioned quote.  The White House
spokesman,
however, admitted that Mr. Bush 'misspoke':
      White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's misstatement
"just
shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak."

It's interesting, you explaining what he meant, since not too long ago,
you
were demanding that someone would provide the exact quote where Mr. Bush
or
his administration had said that Iraq 'had' links to 9/11,etc..   I
mean,
back then almost 70% of the US public took his/their statements to
"mean"
that a link existed and the war was a response to the 9/11 attack, and
you
were saying he 'never' said that, and on this case you're saying 'THIS
is
what he meant'.

While I'm sure some people would say, perhaps its a 'Freudian slip'
revealing the real intentions of the Patriot/II bill, the majority of
people will take it as just another "Bushism".  Could you, however,
indicate what your reaction would have been if that statement was said
by
Kerry?

>
> The Left, as represented by Wirt's attempt at castigating the
president,
> refuses to believe we are at war.  The Left just wants to get along
with
> everybody, no matter what they do to us.

I don't think any previous administration, and even Bush's until 9/11,
took
terrorism seriously.  After all our castle has this huge mote around it
that should keep us safe.  Our country was thought to be like a 'gated'
community, we'd go out every day to 'fend' for short term gains, without
considering the 'long term' consequences, and then return to the safety
behind the 'gates'. At the same time our rhetoric convinced almost
everyone
inside the gates that we are moral, democratic, just, virtuous, and that
even our actions outside the gates were adhering to the same values.
Well,
guess what, that is simply not true and our myopic foreign policies have
come home to 'roost'...

I don't think that we'll 'get along' with everybody, but I also don't
think
that we've developed this magic cookie cutter and we can 'form' everyone
else in our image.  We have to LEAD by example and encourage, not
coarse,
others to adopt the better aspects of our culture.

> Teresa Kerry admonishes the
> country and tells us we need to get used to terrorist bombings, just
> like they are used to it in Europe.

That's a new one for me.  I have not heard that. (Where is your famous
URL)

> The Left would treat every
> terrorist attack as a law enforcement problem and would just try to
> arrest the perpetrators AFTER THE FACT.
>
> This is the bottom line of this election.  If you believe we need to
> preempt the terrorists and prevent further attacks, you vote to
reelect
> President Bush.
>
> If you believe that we should try to get along with the terrorists and
> try to appease them and only punish them after the fact, as long as we
> have the blessings of France, Germany, Russia and China and the UN,
then
> you vote for John Kerry.

Borrowing on someone else's analogy:
One treats terrorism the same way you treat malaria.  You don't
eliminate
malaria by killing all the mosquitoes, you try to eliminate their
'breeding' grounds, you don't 'preempt' malaria, your try to 'prevent'
it.
If you truly want to defeat terrorism then the emphasis MUST be shifted
in
eliminating its root causes.  Stop propping up and supporting oppressive
governments, eliminate despair, respect and recognize the achievements
of
other cultures, support global environmental/health/judicial
initiatives,
stop demanding preferential treatment, stop marginalizing huge swaths of
people. In short; give people back their dignity, for its that loss of
dignity that fertilizes the 'breeding' grounds of terrorism.

Also establish AND adhere to a consistent (not a consistently bad)
foreign
policy, nurture and maintain alliances because we cannot succeed alone
(We
NEED the help of our allies, NOT their blessing).

>
> It is as simple as that.  All the rest is bunk and inconsequential
> compared to this issue.

It IS as simple as that.

Regards
Paul Christidis

>
>
>
> Denys
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *N
y?ly???+?Z?
lz b
ey?+"m j v b???? Ia

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *