Goofus v. Gallant

Gallant: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives but they're a nuisance." – John Kerry, via AP as quoted in The New York Times Magazine on Sunday

Goofus: "I couldn't disagree more," Bush said. "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorist networks and spreading freedom and liberty around the world." The Bush campaign is also criticizing the comment in a new television ad. (Also via AP.)

Is it even possible for the Bush campaign to use any of Kerry’s words against him without totally removing them from their original contexts? Clearly, the implication of what Kerry is saying is that it’s impossible to definitively win the war on terror, but it is possible to contain it to a dull roar—i.e. to the point where the average American isn’t so scared (and/or fearmongered) about a potential catastrophic attack that they’re willing to give up their civil rights for protection.

And didn’t the same Bush that’s quoted above recently say that we can’t win the war on terror, then immediately flip-flop and say we could? Sounds to me like maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, that quashing terrorism completely is an impractical and unachievable goal, but that trying to control the tide of terrorism is probably the most reasonable and attainable objective. (See Gallant, above.)