There was a great quote about this on NPR yesterday, from an older woman who's brother died in the WTC. She said, "Surely the president can find some way to campaign other that doesn't involve <i>walking on the bodies of our dead</i>." (and you really could hear the italics in her voice.)
That said, above and beyond my extreme degree of comfort with anything that makes Son of Bush writhe, this should be a non issue. If Karl Rove wants to talk about 9/11 and highlight the somewhat questionable leadership qualities W displayed on that day, well, gee, what can I say?
Oh I know: "Bring it on!"
Quote:
Originally posted by JBX
KIM Chong-il already endorsed Senator Kerry. Hmm, how come?
|
Because he's not the total psychopath his father was? Because he'd rather talk to someone who came to the table with a bit less xenophoia than the DPRK generally displays? Because the world is a complicated place and could use a fellow who's more interested in solving problems than gittin' the bad guy? Because he just plain hates GWB? Because Kerry might possibly bargain in good faith?
That a terrorist would prefer Kerry over Bush is not necessarily a bad thing. It could be as simple as that they would find it easier to relate to a fellow who has experienced a Guerrilla insurgency first hand (as opposed to skipping out on his duty to his country to fight a losing battle in Alabama.) Maybe the crazy evil courage it takes to strap dynamite to one's self and take your enemy with you when you go responds to the kind of courage that turns his boat into enemy fire and goes on the offensive when attaked more than it does to the kind that runs the risk of going brazenly AWOL because one's daddy will certainly make things right.
What I'm getting at is that having one's enemy's respect is step one to not having an enemy.