e-Claire

GRAND-SON OF: NYT --Non-biased and brilliant

and pixies are doing my taxes Following is a clearer statement of the juxtaposition of the two viewpoints -- not attributed to sKerry directly, except by implication. Note the interesting use of the first word in the para. Subliminal taint? I'm betting BigTP won't think so. ; >

Fundamentally, Bush sees the war on terror as a military campaign, not simply to protect American lives but also to preserve and spread American values around the world; his liberal critics see it more as an ideological campaign, one that will turn back a tide of resentment toward Americans and thus limit the peril they face at home. [p3]

Following some personal anecdotes about Kerry making much of preferring "Plain old American water" to the Evian laid out for the interview -- yet being unable to name any "American water" brands -- the author goes into some depth about Kerry's defensive attitude toward being interviewed.

What some politicians -- Bill Clinton comes to mind -- might have considered an opportunity to persuade and impress voters, Kerry seemed to regard only as an invitation to do himself harm. [p4] ...the Bush team [had begun] to portray him, devastatingly, as a ''flip-flopper'' who careens from one position to another. In our conversation, Kerry seemed unusually sensitive to these allegations, to the point where he seemed unwilling to admit to having evolved or grown in the way that politicians -- or human beings, for that matter -- generally do. [p5] ...When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment. ''It accelerated -- '' He paused. ''I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing."

So... He already knew about the severity of the terrorist threat. He wasn't taken by surprise? As the article develops, that is exactly what the author is saying.

"I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.''

After declaring "18 times in 2 hours" that he would wage a "more effective" war not-war on terror, he got down to "how?"

[all the stuff we're already doing] "and most importantly -- and I mean most importantly -- restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us.''

So, on other words, Kerry wants to turn America into a '90s senso-male. Not fierce. Not dangerous. No metal to back up what we say. More like a best friend who's always on your side, in that smarmy, co-dependent kinda way...

By the simple act of changing presidents, the country would greatly increase its chances of success in the global war on terror.

uh huh . . . NB I'm gonna break this up into several pieces so as not to go on and on and on to make it less egregious. The original piece is Kerry's Undeclared War from the NYT Magazine. [login: biasedashell PW: dncshill]

<< Back to main