Winning still matters, etc...

[R.A. Hettinga]

At 5:50 PM -0700 10/30/04, John Young wrote:
>Rhetorical bloodlusters, they be

Absolutely.

Go read Hanson's "Carnage and Culture". Feed your bloodlust.

:-).

Cheers,
RAH
Who knows who Brooks is, too:

<http://nytimes.com/2004/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=>

The New York Times
October 30, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Osama Litmus Test
By DAVID BROOKS

he 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 at nytimes.com

Copyrigh
-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'