Posted on 10/30/2004 5:38:01 AM PDT by neverdem
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The nuisance is back!
Remember when John Kerry told Matt Bai of The Times Magazine that he wanted to reduce the terrorists to a nuisance? Kerry vowed to mitigate the problem of terrorism until it became another regrettable and tolerable fact of life, like gambling, organized crime and prostitution.
That was the interview in which he said Sept. 11 "didn't change me much at all." He said it confirmed in him a sense of urgency, "of doing the things we thought we needed to be doing."
Well, the Osama bin Laden we saw last night was not a problem that needs to be mitigated. He was not the leader of a movement that can be reduced to a nuisance.
What we saw last night was revolting. I suspect that more than anything else, he reminded everyone of the moral indignation we all felt on and after Sept. 11.
Here was this monster who killed 3,000 of our fellows showing up on our TV screens, trying to insert himself into our election, trying to lecture us on who is lying and who is telling the truth. Here was this villain traipsing through his own propaganda spiel with copycat Michael Moore rhetoric about George Bush in the schoolroom, and Jeb Bush and the 2000 Florida election.
Here was this deranged killer spreading absurd theories about the American monarchy and threatening to murder more of us unless we do what he says.
One felt all the old emotions. Who does he think he is, and who does he think we are?
One of the crucial issues of this election is, Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man? Which of these two guys understands it deep in his gut - not just in his brain or in his policy statements, but who feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him?
It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue.
Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.
Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political.
On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer."
Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress.
But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."
But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.
This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself?
We are revealed by what we hate. When it comes to Osama bin Laden, Kerry hasn't revealed whatever it is that lies inside.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
Sometimes David Brooks infuriates me, he seems to vacillate, but this is a first-rate editorial and I hope it gets a wide reading from the typical NYT readers.
He hasn't revealed it because even he don't know.
And even if he did, it would change by the next shift in the wind.
David Brooks and Bill Safire are the ONLY voices of reason left at the NY Slimes. In fact, I feel that in the closing weeks of the election campaign, Brooks has been more effective than Safire in rebutting his deranged leftist fellow op-ed columnists like Krugman and Dowd.
Brooks is an op-ed columnist. He does not reflect the editorial spin of the Times itself. He is a lonely voice of moderate reason that is allowed to voice his opinion in the Times. And this was a great column.
Just dont stay around long enough to read any of Krugman or Dowd tomorrow.... you may want to barf up your entire Halloween dinner.
good post
What a deceitful guy Kerry is....
We all know that John "Nuisance" Kerry wants us to outsource all our wars.
His first impulse is to invite the UN to tell us what to do.
A FRENCH START
FOR AMERICA
Kerry / Edwards
This portion of OBL's speech wasn't aired on television; might give a boost to Bush's campaign and Old Media certainly doesn't want that:
But after we were so fed up, and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really touched me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the US permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these ha
One theme that must be played up is the basic tenet of Osama message. he hates Israel, hates Jews and wants them and anyone supporting them destroyed. To excuse, coddle or even send messages that are in agreement with Osama (like Michael Moore, Patty Murray, Jim Mcdermott, and many supporters of John Kerry) is to be an anti semite. American will no longer tolerate anti-Semitism and it needs to be called out. It is not really different than benabling the KKK in this day and time. This anti-semitic appeasement and enablingis position the RATS have alligned themselves with in being completely tepid on 9/11 and Osama and in making statements that undermine our recoignition of Osaam's evil intent.
Please G-d, let Bush be reelected... I am more and more afraid... If sKerry is elected, it will be the end of the West!
Amen...
But look at all my political idiot co-religionists that will vote for sKerry... as the Italian Jews voted en masse for Mussolini!
This was in the NY Times? Must have been typed in very small print in an unnoticeable section.This column actually only appeared in the Tuvaluan Language Edition of the Slimes.
All 11,000 speakers of that language were potentially very impressed by the logic of this piece.
Thanks for describing Brooks and Safire for the readers of this thread. Safire still has another shot before Election Day!
I am so afraid by now, I am a nervous wreck...
sKerry elected would be the end of the West!
Actually, democrats ARE defined by what they hate, and it isn't hidden at all.
One thing that struck me odd with this tape was the seeming lack of the "May Allah be Praised" lines that seemed to uttered after every sentence in previous tapes/videos. Anybody else notice that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.