PDA

View Full Version : Prominent Republican: Terrorism = Nuisance



ljb5
10-14-2004, 02:12 PM
General Brent Scowcroft (http://www.usip.org/events/2002/america/scowcroft.html)
National Security Advisor to G.H.W.Bush
Forum for International Security appointed by G.W.Bush


Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes, I think we can, in the sense that we can win the war on organized crime. There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is only a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies.

Jim H
10-14-2004, 02:15 PM
So Kerry lifted that entire thought, without attribution. What do they call that in school?

ljb5
10-14-2004, 02:26 PM
There's always some way to avoid the obvious, isn't there?

Dan McCosh
10-14-2004, 02:36 PM
I thought that was what Bush said when he said that we can't really win the war on terrorism.

ljb5
10-14-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
I thought that was what Bush said when he said that we can't really win the war on terrorism.I thought so too. And it was a sensible thing to say.

But when Kerry said it, all of a sudden Bush pretended like he'd never heard it before and it was the wrong thing to say. Some people, even on this forum, attacked Kerry for saying the same thing that Bush and Scowcroft said.

Some people care more about attacking Kerry than the issue.

Chris Coose
10-14-2004, 02:52 PM
They showed up in the Green Zone today.
Either way, the dubbya's flip flop on whether terrorism should be eliminated or brought to managable ought to be demonstrated in his war,....at least.
Otherwise, he ain't fit to lead us against this threat because he is clueless. Absolutely ignorant of the core problems.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-15-2004, 04:42 AM
This seems highly pertinent to this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3743446.stm

And for the record:

I like the United States:

I like many things about the Republican Party. As a non-American, a citizen of an ally and a friend of the United States, I have admired the foreign policy pursued by Republican Presidents, all the way from Eisenhower through Nixon and Ford to Reagan and George Bush Senior.

I don't particularly dislike George Bush the Younger.

However, the foreign policy of the "neocons" inspires in me nothing but contempt - and trepidation that such a bunch should have seized power over the foreign and military policies of the greatest nation on the planet.

[ 10-15-2004, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Craig-Bennett ]

PeterSibley
10-15-2004, 05:35 AM
"Trepidation" might be the word you're looking for...it would suit my feelings very nicely.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-15-2004, 06:04 AM
Thank you, Peter. Emended accordingly.

Keith Wilson
10-15-2004, 08:35 AM
I think we need another word than "neo-conservatives", one more descriptive of what they actually want to do. How about "militarists"? "Imperialists"? - no, probably too loaded, although not entirely inaccurate. "Interventionists"? "Adventurists"? "Filibusterers", in the original sense of the word? Probably too obscure. "Crusaders" I don't think would go over well. Any suggestions?

Garrett Lowell
10-15-2004, 08:42 AM
I thought that Liberals were against stereo-typing and labelling and profiling.

[ 10-15-2004, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Garrett Lowell ]

km gresham
10-15-2004, 08:53 AM
That rule does not apply to evil, hateful, mean, heartless Republicans. ;)

Keith Wilson
10-15-2004, 09:41 AM
I thought that Liberals were against stereo-typing and labelling and profiling.
Although that was partially a joke, one has to call them something. "Neoconservative" is not accurate anymore; it originally described people who were on the fairly far left during the late '60s and early '70s who have changed their mind and become conservative, and particularly those who changed their minds about US military intervention after opposing the Vietnam War. It scarcely describes Cheney or Wolfowitz; they came from an egg from their mother's right ovary and sperm from their father's right testicle, and have been nothing if not consistent.

I think an accurate term is needed. "Interventionist", although clumsy is accurate, since their distinguishing characteristic is that they generally favor US military action abroad. "Militarist" is not inaccurate. Any suggestions?

TomF
10-15-2004, 10:01 AM
Absolutely right, Karen ;)

To be serious for a moment, I've been impressed by the changing tone of the bilge recently. Lots of low- to mid-level sniping, but also people working to keep the place civil. And in addition to the predictable blind loyalty, we've also seen firmly partisan folks taking very public stands on issues of integrity - thinking of Garrett Lowell here. He and I would strongly disagree on some issues, but I'd love to live across the street from him.

Back to the thread: what about Scowcroft's statement though? If he really made those comments, it seems perilously hypocritical to beat up Kerry for saying the same (reasonable) thing. And Bush has missed a big political opportunity here.

Considering how the stereotypes have emerged about the two contenders, wouldn't it have been more strategic to ding Kerry for plagiarism, and then legitimately criticize him for having a lack of original vision? It would have "proved" that Bush's views are more nuanced than he's led us all to believe, and courted the ever elusive swing voter. But Bush has painted himself into a corner now on this ... couldn't have distanced himself more from a nuanced view.

Tom Fetter.

Chris Stewart
10-15-2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by TomF:
Considering how the stereotypes have emerged about the two contenders, wouldn't it have been more strategic to ding Kerry for plagiarism, and then legitimately criticize him for having a lack of original vision? Strategic? Perhaps, but one would have had to (A) paid attention to and (B) remembered what Scowcroft said two years ago. I doubt many people did either, and strongly suspect that whoever on Kerry's team lifted the comment was the one who later floated the Scowcroft speech as damage control.

But you are correct that is not appropriate to bash Kerry and laud Scowcroft (if anyone has) for saying nearly the same thing. In any event, I stand by my comments in the original Terrorism=Nuisance thread no matter who made the original statements.

(Edited to correctly? spell the name of that Prominent Republican)

[ 10-15-2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Chris Stewart ]

Dan McCosh
10-15-2004, 12:41 PM
The "nuisance" phrase as used by Kerry seems pretty clear. It was not saying that terrorism was simply a "nuisance"--it was a desciption of how the future would be if it is brought under control. The opposite position would be that you would expect terrorism to continue to dominate the landscape and world affairs in the future. I doubt this is what Bush means, but this is what he is saying by ridiculing Kerry's statement. Bush's chronic inability to comprehend or accurately paraphrase his opponent's view is discomforting.

[ 10-15-2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Dan McCosh ]

Kev Smyth
10-15-2004, 12:51 PM
NewsMax Wires
Friday, Oct. 15, 2004
Zogby International's latest daily tracking poll reveals that a day after the final debate, President Bush has opened a four-point lead over Democratic rival Senator John Kerry.

Joe (SoCal)
10-15-2004, 12:52 PM
NewsMax :rolleyes:
That would be like me quoting Dan Rather hmmm Conrad ;)

Gonzalo
10-15-2004, 02:47 PM
Keith,

There was an surprising article on Cheney's political evolution in the Raleigh News and Observer last week. Wish I could remember the author's name -- a professor at NC State University. He worked with Cheney on a research project when they were both grad students in the early 70s. He spent weeks traveling around the country with Cheney and discussing politics (they were both studying political science.) He described the young Cheney as an "anti-war liberal!"

On the scale of 1 to 7 that political scientists use to rate political leanings from liberal to conservative, the author estimates Cheney was then a 1 (most liberal) and is now a 7 (most conservative.)

According to the author:

Cheney discussed the option of government service vs. an academic career at length with the author. He chose government because it was an opportunity to help the poor. He worked for Office of Economic Opportunity, where he and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, were known as "Pinkos" in Nixon's Washington.

Churchill quipped that if a man isn't a liberal at age 20, he has no heart; if he hasn't become conservative by 40, he has no head. It is normal for people to become more conservative as they age, but rare for someone to have made as large a swing to the right as Cheney did.

If this article can be believed, it sounds like Cheney fits right into the definition of Neo-conservative you posted earlier.

Keith Wilson
10-15-2004, 03:11 PM
Well, I stand corrected. I'd bet the article is reasonably accurate, and they really are "neos". Perhaps it has something to do with the zeal of a convert, and atoning for one's youthful errors?

How about "neo-imperialist"? ;)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-15-2004, 07:09 PM
I'd settle for "chauvinist".