Friday, October 15, 2004

Honesty is such a lonely word

I really thought I had heard, seen, or read it all when it comes to our president. And so I really thought that it wasn't possible to be surprised by the things he says or does. But I was wrong.

At a campaign rally in Oregon on Thursday, he actually said the following:
Once again, last night, with a straight face, the senator said—well, shall we say, refined his answer on his proposed global test. That's the test he would administer before defending America. After trying to say it really wasn't a test at all, last night he once again defended his approach, saying, I think it makes sense. (Laughter.) The senator now says we'd have to pass some international truth standard. The truth is we should never turn America's national security decisions over to international bodies or leaders of other countries. (Applause.)

So let me get this straight. The President of the United States actually believes the truth is unimportant. That regardless of the veracity of the evidence, we should go to war if we want to. He is actually deriding Kerry for demanding that we be held accountable for our actions. I know I shouldn't be shocked, but I am. I'm pretty sure this is the most frightening thing he has ever said.

I've decided to hold a two-part contest. If there are winners, they will get a prize.

Part one: Give me an honest, intellectually-strong defense of this mentality.

Part two: Try to find a more frightening line from our president.


At 10:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paradoxically, he's just being very truthful. Kerry thinks it's important to tell the truth, and Bush is letting us know he doesn't.

Seriously, it's reached the point that if Kerry says the most sensible, reasonable thing in the world, but mentions that word -- "world" -- or "international" or "global" or anthing similar, it's poison. Kerry could say, "Any action we take should pass this test: it should make the world safer," and Bush would respond, "My opponent thinks we should worry about other countries more than our own safety. I will never put the world's welfare ahead of America's." *applause*

At 9:32 AM, Blogger Randall said...

You of all people should understand that "truth" is all relative. What's "true" to the international community may not, in fact, be true to the US. For example, Russia warned the US that Saddam was looking for a way to strike us. Despite their intelligence that said Saddam was a threat to the US, they still opposed the US action. What Dubya is saying, in his own unique way, is that he won't ask for permission to defend Amercia.

Unfortunately, a better argument might have been that he too used the international truth test (whatever that means) to decide whether or not to act. He used the 19 violated UN resolutions, the fact that the rest of the world thought, along with us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The only difference was that the UN was afraid to do anything about it. That is where the president decided to lead. He saw a threat and acted.

Bush argues that in the same instance Kerry would not act. Kerry would defer to the U.N. Like it or not, that resonates with voters. They don't want American security in the hands of France and Germany.

Kerry has said that he wouldn't give any international body a veto over American security. So it just comes down to who the voters believe on Nov. 2. As the polls are showing, they believe Kerry. And I think it'll be fairly decisive (electorally).

At 4:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say : "The only difference was that the UN was afraid to do anything about it. That is where the president decided to lead. He saw a threat and acted."

Well, your arguement was good up until there because there was NO threat.


Post a Comment

<< Home