There seems to be a new tactic emerging from the conservative and neo-cons lately. I have seen it on various blogs and also slowly emerging in interviews and in watching the media.
Basically, come November, a vote against Bush is a vote for terrorism.
If you vote for John Kerry, that is a vote for Al Queda and Saddam.
Now any rational, logical, person can see the error in this argument, but as I think we well know now, I personally have reasons to doubt the American public at large when it comes to things in the 21st century. If most of we Americans were a little be more culturally aware and worldly wise, we would have seen the vast majority of the events that have thus far occurred in 21st century and would have acted accordingly. Still, I'm not one to chastise for "would of, could of" when we need to address the issues that are presently at hand.
To equate that a vote against Bush is a vote for terrorism is disingenuous at best. One does not reflect the other. There are many people in the US who dislike Bush's domestic policies and think he's done a great job when it comes to foreign policy. Because these people may put the priorities on their environment at home, does this make them pro-terrorism? I think not.
Bush himself tried using this kind of faulty logic when Spain elected a new leader who wants to pull Spain out of Iraq. By Spain pulling troops out of Iraq, they are bowing to terrorism. Once again, I don't agree with this argument. If we look at the whole history post 9/11, it is clear that at a point, most the world was on the United States side and supported this "War on Terror". The real problem is and always has been:
Article comments
1 - Jim Carruthers
Isn't it time that the rest of the world started to look at USA Inc. like Tony Soprano is starting to treat Uncle June?
Y'know Bushites wandering around in their housecoat and slippers, looking for the old neighbourhood they used to know.
2 - Dan
John Kerry in January 2003:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
3 - Jim Carruthers
So, Dan, let me get this straight, it's Kerry's fault that he made an honest statement to a lie, and it's his fault that that it was a lie?
4 - Dan
Well Jim, I wasn't faulting Kerry for making the statement. I was under the impression he made that statement with the same intelligence info Bush had at the time, what you characterize as a "lie".
In Ms. Teks' piece above, she faults Bush for acting on the intelligence/lie, and thinks voters would like to see terrorist policy go in a different and better "direction".
I don't think Kerry, the Bush alternative, has a direction. Not one he'll stick to. It is good for a leader to recognize when to cut your losses and back away from a failed policy, but I see mostly good things developing from the Iraqi intervention. I think at the very least, and at this stage, you would have to say the jury is still out.
That is how most voters respond to polls as well. I think most voters recognize that Bush is a leader who is unafraid to take potentially damaging political risk when National security is in the balance, in contrast to Democrat leadership that seems concerned mainly with low risk self-preservation and political entrenchment.
5 - Ms. Tek
Um, no Dan.
What I am saying clearly in the piece is that if you don't vote for Bush, it doesn't mean that you support terrorism which is the snakeoil that the Cons, and neo-Cons are selling now.
6 - Eric Olsen
Ms. Tek, very good post. I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions (obviously, there are always some things that could have been done better), it's logical, specific and reasonable. I don't think too many people blame all aspects of "the current state of affairs" on Bush, nor should they.