After three years of color-coded warnings and partisan bickering, Sen. John Kerry and President George Bush finally can see eye to eye on the meaning of winning the war on terror. Not convinced? Let's compare two interviews. On the campaign trail Bush said, I don't think you can win (the war on terror). But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world
on Sept. 2. Kerry recently hinted toward his goals when asked, What it would take for Americans to feel safe again? In an Oct. 10 interview with the New York Times Magazine, Kerry responded, We have to get back to the place we were where terrorists are not the focus of our lives but they're a nuisance. For once the candidates transcended petty politics and gave sober assessments of a pivotal issue.
Don't count on it ever happening again.
Immediately after being published, these two sensible goals became targets for more attacks in a campaign that already has been the dirtiest in recent history. The Kerry campaign dutifully has pointed out the contradiction of this statement with every administration claim since Sept. 11. It fails to mention, though, that Bush may have been right this time.
Meanwhile the Republicans have demonstrated their talent at distorting every Kerry statement. A Bush-Cheney ad takes Kerry's quote for a whole new spin. It asserts that Kerry doesn't think we are at war and belittles his assertion that intelligence gathering and law enforcement matter more than military in preventing domestic terrorism. I fail to see how a tank can stop terrorists who operate in the U.S. while good intelligence and FBI agents kicking down doors cannot. Then, the ad misleads viewers into believing Kerry stated, We are never going to end (terrorism)
which he never said specifically. In the same way the campaign turned global test -a condition requiring that the American people are told the whole truth about a war beforehand -into Global Test -a policy to give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions -this distortion has become the discussion of the week, doomed to die only when a new lie takes its place.
For all of this, Kerry stands by his words. The Bush campaign, however, backed away from the president's statements and returned to the ambiguous mantra of taking the fight to the terrorists and to remind voters of how 9/11 changed everything. People living through the daily specter of terrorism deserve to know what our long-term strategy is and how we plan to approach it. We have yet to receive any such message.
One thing that didn't change on Sept. 11 is that wars on nouns, like poverty or terror, invariably will fail if they are not given goals by which progress can be measured. Bush has failed to illustrate these objectives. In place of Kerry's endgame to minimize the terrorist menace, Bush offers a never-diminishing war on ghostly evil-doers with little distinction between friend and foe. To use a Bush-Cheney ad: How can (George Bush) protect us ... when he doesn't understand the threat? (World View
http://www.georgebush.com, modification of Kerry to Bush my own).
-Jess Wilhelm is a sophomore astrophysics major. Send him an e-mail at jess.wilhelm@ohiou.edu.
17
Archives
Jess Wilhelm
