|
|
|
|
- G e n d e r G a p p e r s T M
DANCES WITH NUANCE
 What
about all these warnings of impending terrorist attacks on financial buildings
in the U.S.? Are they for real? Are they
imminent? Does three year old information count? Are they just another
attempt by the Bushies to frighten the electorate into voting for him?
Why is there such an emphasis that these attacks are timed to foul up the U.S. election for president? All of these questions need to be answered. What future shocks are to come from the Convention or in October? So many questions, but first we need to know why candidate Kerry says knowing what he knows now, he would still have voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. It left him wide open for a vicious attack by Bush. In his attack, Bush ignored the nuance and misrepresented (lied) about how Kerry had qualifying his answer. Wonder of wonders, this fabrication was pointed out by none other than Brent Hume on Fox News. Yes, Kerry qualified his answer. He said that he would not have made the mistakes that Bush did, but W-w-w-wait a minute! He now knows, as do we, there are no WMD's. He knows, as do we, that the U.S. was not in danger from Iraq. He knows, as do we, that Bush lies. He knows, as do we, that Bush had intended to invade Iraq well before 9/11 happened and that Iraq had nothing to do with that terrorist attack on the twin towers. He knows, as do we, that invading Iraq just increased the hatred for America among the Moslems. He knows, as do we, that al Quida has been able to recruit many Moslems who are angry at the invasion. He knows, as do we, that we aren't any safer because Iraq was invaded. He knows, as do we, that Bush's invasion tore a country apart and that priceless antiquities were stolen. Why does he think Bush would suddenly get smart about how to go about invading Iraq and why, knowing all this would it be necessary? He knows, as do we, that with the UN inspections and good diplomatic work, Saddam could probably have been deposed over time WITHOUT PREEMPTIVE WAR. So the big question is "What do Kerry and Bush know that we do not?" Remember that presidential candidates are given briefings equal to the ones the president gets. Are we being nuanced by one and tricked by the other? Surely, Kerry's answer to the question from Bush should have been, "NO! I would not vote for you to invade Iraq. What I know now is that you have proved yourself unfit to be Commander in Chief." Then Kerry should enumerate the reasons as we have done (above.) It troubles the mind that Kerry so clearly has announced that he would give Bush support to invade Iraq without clearly and constantly enunciating the conditions for such support. Bush still lies so what has changed? We wonder anew whether Bush is toying with our emotions by producing bogus terrorist alarms. How many such empty promises of terrorist strikes can occur, how many cries of wolf will we shudder through before we get fed up and shrug our shoulders in disbelief? The rub is that an attack could come at any time and we all know the story of the boy who cried wolf. Nothing much happened to the boy unless his folks gave him a whipping or some like punishment.
Nuance that. 2004-033 Copyright 2004 Renee T. Louise and Ruth M. Sprague, Ph.D. These articles may be republished for noncommercial use only, provided that they are copied intact, and that this copyright notice is attached. Address all queries to: twanda@sover.net. |
