Friday, January 30, 2004

Andrew Sullivan 

Andrew Sullivan continues to be totally reflexive in his arguments surrounding terrorism, this time framing the 2004 election as basically a choice between fighting terrorists (cue sexual fantasy of Bush on an aircraft carrier wearing only the codpiece part of his flight suit) and folding (cue Democratic candidate gutting our defense budget or something).

The problem here, again, is how Sully talks about the world changing on 9/11/01:
Back to the 1990s or post-9/11 Bush. Law enforcement versus war. It's a clear and important distinction. Let's put it at the center of this debate, where it belongs.
Nevermind that, in reality, he must realize that the war on terror cannot be merely a military exercise, and therefore, John Kerry is right. But even Bush would never say that only the military matters, so that makes this post that much more disingenuous. The point is you get nowhere framing the 2004 election as "soft on terror" versus "strong (or in Sully's case, hard) on terror." Any president would have gone into Afghanistan in 2001, and most would have done a better job at it than Bush did, by putting real troops to secure the peace (and (gasp!) "nation-build") and not distracting our purpose by going into Iraq.
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?