Sunday Sophistry: Kerry, Terrorism and Nuisances (or: Marc Racicot Channels the Spirit of Jacques Derrida)

Written by Winston Smith
Published October 11, 2004

Just when you think they can't stoop any lower, the Bush camp up and surprises you. CNN reports that Kerry recently said the following in an interview in the NYT Magazine:

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance...as a former law enforcement person,I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

A perfectly sensible thing to say, of course. In fact, consonant with some things Bush himself has said. But the Bushies, perhaps taking a cue from those "Bible Code" folks, long ago discovered that if you take the words someone says and rearrange them...well, you can win elections!

Marc Racicot, a man not known for a superabundance of intellectual honor, claims that Kerry said that:

"...the war on terrorism is like a nuisance. He equated it to prostitution and gambling, a nuisance activity. You know, quite frankly, I just don't think he has the right view of the world. It's a pre-9/11 view of the world."

CNN also reports that:

"Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie on CBS' Face the Nation, used similar language.'Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq.' "

Of course it does no good to argue with these people because none of them believe what they are saying. One would have to be dimwitted in the extreme--far more dimwitted even than Gillespie or Racicot--to interpret Kerry's words as they allegedly do. Or you'd have to have an exceptionally tenuous grasp of the English language. This is obvious and intentional distortion. Lying, that is. Lying about what Kerry said, and about the clear intent of his words. But just for the sheer pleasure of it, let's treat the talking point in question as if it were to be taken seriously.

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Buy from Amazon.com
Sophist Sophist
Plato
Book,

Sunday Sophistry: Kerry, Terrorism and Nuisances (or: Marc Racicot Channels the Spirit of Jacques Derrida)
Published: October 11, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Writer: Winston Smith
Winston Smith's BC Writer page
Winston Smith's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Winston Smith
All Politics Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — October 11, 2004 @ 17:03PM — John Nubianu [URL]

"SLICK BOAT" VETS SUPPORT ROLPH NADEER'S SOLO CAMPAIGN

The trick of tricknology is the trick of deception. It seems that Rolph Nadeer as has some former candidates are being supported by anti-Democrats in the effort to use these ambitious people (like Rolph Nadeer) to take votes from the Democrats.

It seems that since the days of the Texas millionaire with the large ears, this trick of using 'third party' candidates to offset one or the other party has become part of the political process.

Gee, when will we get to the days of good ol' fashion politics when there were only two political parties?

Wonder what would happen if George Washington had suspected that the a 'third party' supported by the Brits was about to prevent the vote for independance or that those who voted for George Washington were about to be shafted?

Oh well, like they say, "politics make for strange bedfellows."

Nubian Empire

#2 — October 11, 2004 @ 17:22PM — Mac Diva [URL]

Winston, we're discussing the stem cell controversy on my Christopher Reeve thread. I'm reading up on the topic and the Bush administration's stance has left me sitting here with my mouth hanging open. The sophomoric claim that the fetuses not used for in vitro fertalization need Bush to protect them from seientists is just bizarre. Yet, he has gotten away with thwarting research by issuing an executive order for three years. Amazing.

#3 — October 11, 2004 @ 17:30PM — Eric Olsen

clearly this is disingenuous use of what was said and it's important to point it out, especially for those who only follow the reports and not the actual words themselves - thanks and excellent to have you back Winston!

#4 — October 11, 2004 @ 17:44PM — Matt Egan [URL]

Unbelievable...wait! Not unbelievable. In fact, completely believable. The campaigns now have these zit popping interns trolling every written or spoken word by both candidates to try and find anything that could be twisted into something different. The same thing happened when Cheney said that electing Kerry could mean another terrorist attack.

Oh, wait, he actually did say that. Shit. I thought I was going to be able to be unbiased in this comment.

#5 — October 11, 2004 @ 18:03PM — Eric Olsen

at least you tried, Matt

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/20836)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments