Is it just me, or is the Giuliani campaign's insistence on renaming the post-9/11 conflict with al Qaeda "the Terrorists' War on Us" easily the worst coinage of this election season? It doesn't just tie up the tongue; it makes it sound like America's in a defensive crouch and getting pummeled, which is hardly the image that Rudy's "peace through ass-kicking" candidacy is trying to project. The "War on Terror" is dumb for all kinds of reasons, but at least it's pro-active.
« The Spoiler | Main | The Cocoon » TTWOU?24 Jul 2007 01:33 pm Comments (10)
I prefer "The War With Islam" myself. Things always go better when we call them by their proper names. 
Guilini is trying desperately to retain his frontrunner status, and this is the only thing he's got in common with the base - being "tough."
Elvis, I don't think (2) is a particularly big part of the "vision of the world" of anyone running the GOP, or the Democratic Party. It's merely a general expectation of most of the elite class, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't as if the Democratic Party is all James Webb.
That's fair enough, marquis. A defining characteristic may have been a better term than vision of the world. As to the difference between the GOP and the Democrats, all the most powerful GOP candidates and figures-- Cheney, Bush, Giuliani, Romney, plus maybe-rans like Gingrich and Thompson, plus the mose prominent commentators like Kristol and Podhoretz-- are huge into nonspecific bellicosity and avoiding discussing the actually-existing wars in Iraq an Afghanistan. Not so for the Democrats. And none of those folks served in Vietnam-- some went to great lengths to avoid it. The cartoonish version of national security currently ascendant in the GOP only makes sense in the context of not having served in the military.
Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one who thinks this phrase is ludicrous. I assume it must have been focus-grouped to death, so I guess it can't be that bad... but still, it's such a silly slogan.
Actually defeating terrorism requires good police action and counter-intelligence on the micro level and good diplomacy on the macro level. Always has, always will. (Unless your idea of "victory" is killing very large numbers of innocent people into the bargain that is.) Spit and froth all you want about "war" against this and that. It's schoolyard bluster. It doesn't make you look tough. It makes you look deeply insecure. Which you of course are.
I prefer "The War With Islam" myself. Things always go better when we call them by their proper names. No, things always go better when one evinces a modicum of good judgment (and god forbid veracity) in defining things. What do you think the consequences of an American president going for that name would be? Do you think our chances of "winning" would be improved or worsened? Be honest with yourself if not anyone else. Even it your characterization were accurate, which it demonstrably is not, it would be a mind-bendingly stupid term to latch onto, and probably grounds for impeachment by any Congress with a shred of a sense of responsibility about America's best interests. Did you know there are many of the world's billion or so Muslims happen to be American citizens? Christ, even Bush would take you to task on that stupidest of comments. But fine, live in your fantasy world where we can declare "war" on an entire world religion. Religious wars are to the death. So if that were its real name, you ought at least be man enough to reconcile yourself to the mass bloodshed that would inevitably result. I'd bet my house you never actually thought it through however: doing so would have required some intelligence, which would of course have preempted the original stupid remark.
OK guys, talk to you guys later, I'm about to go kill some Indonesians to help win the War on Islam. Tim of Angle, why don't you head to Dearborn. What will you others tell your grandchildren that you did to help our side win the War?
Bill, I'm an Orthodox Christian. We've been at war with Islam for the last 1400 years. We didn't start it -- they did. But you wouldn't know that, because your knowledge of history doesn't extend past last week. And guess what? They're winning. Why? Because of ignorant people like you. Unfortunately, there won't be anybody there to laugh at you when they come to cut your head off and enslave your family. Enjoy it while you can. Elvis, we have people in Dearborn, and they're on the case ... and certainly more help than you'll ever be.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Isn't Giuliani's campaign more "war through ass-kicking" than what you suggest? All he ever says is (1) that he was mayor when terrorists attacked NYC and (2) that we have to engage in bombing, invasions, and torture of unspecified countries and groups. The Iraq failure is off-message, and unmentioned.
It's such a strange little group the GOP has decided to be run by, people whose whole vision of the world is based on (1) the prioritization of the use of force in foreign afffairs and (2) the imperative of personally avoiding military service.
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 24, 2007 4:14 PM