10/12/2004 09:33:18 AM|||Nathan Moore|||

The Kerry Campaign's memo of the day has replaced my long favorite excuse for muddled communication, "nuance", with a new monicker for more ridiculous statements, "out of context". This is the battle cry for every Kerry spokesman I've seen over the last two days.

Of course that's the problem. It's all "out of context". When John Kerry tells us when terrorists were a nuisance, we can talk. But denial of saying anything, as seems to be the current tact, is problematic. Note that in all the harping about the senator's words being taken out of context, no one is running around supplying the proper context, or clarifying what he really meant to say.

That's just it - he did mean what he said. But once again, after saying it, realized he should have probably kept such sentiments to himself. This was not an accident, nor is he being treated unfairly. John Kerry has repeatedly shown that he is unfit to protect the United States of America. His senate record demonstrates this clearly, and his "gaffes" show that his politics are still windsurfing in the nonexistent reality of 9/10/01.

Those who think the Bush has made us less safe - I don't know what to say. We were already attacked. There is no such thing as "stirring up the hornets' nest" - it was already well-stirred, but for nothing we did. Appeasement never works - but unlike Hitler, who the foolish of 1939 Europe thought could be placated by the ceding of land, our enemies of today are not interested in territorial conquest. They are interested in the elimination of all non-Islamic peoples. The only recognized method of communication is force.

In short, the terms of appeasement are our own destruction. What sense does that make? And if someone would like to attempt a cogent argument, that somehow appeasement would work, please comment below. I'd love to see it.

|||109759225844526298|||Would They Stop???