| |
|
| |
logomachy--1. A dispute
about words. 2. A dispute carried on in words only; a battle of words.
logomachon--1. One who argues about words.
2. A word warrior.
|
|
| |
|
| |
2004-08-02
Mark Steyn's Rhetorical Silver Bullet
Mark Steyn's rhetorical silver bulletThe next time WMD, Bush lied, etc. comes up:Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.[JFKy]
Got that? If the Empire State Building's taken out, he'll certainly respond to it. Next time 'round, there won't be any mistakes about where the WMD are because they'll be in the middle of a big crater in Chicago. UPDATE:Kerry's firm, impassioned commitment with wiggle roomMy 15-year-old niece immediately pointed out that Kerry's promise of a "swift and certain response" to an attack came within 45 seconds of a promise never to send US troops into harm’s way without exhausting all other options. Maybe he hopes to finesse the difference by sending French troops before he has exhausted all other options.
Nyahh! Unfortunately, while we understood him--and were meant to understand him--to be saying "exhausting all other options", what he said is more muddled and uncertain than that....Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent."
...
...
...
And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. Protecting fundamental American values is not the same as protecting the American people. He declared health care for all and equality for women to be fundamental American values. Are we going to war with Iran or North Korea over those? Sounds like a war of choice to me.
A lot depends on the relationship between these two sentences: "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."
Are they, with the next sentence, part of a crescendo? Or does the second sentence explain "when force is required". Certainly, after an attack there is no "real and imminent" threat.
And if you follow the logic of "And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us", it seems that other nations do, after all, have a veto over our national security (leaving aside all the other ways the assumptions and insinuations of the sentence are wrong). If other nations don't cooperate, the terrorists will get us first.
Kerry wants to sound a firm and impassioned commitment and still leave himself wiggle room. He gives the game away when he explains why we need to get France and Germany to help.
...We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
So defending American values is too burdensome, too costly, and too risky for the American people? What kind of commitment to America is that?!?! If that line was intended to give the undecided and swayable Americans a reason to start to lean toward him, it is an insult. If it was intended to appeal to the values of the Democratic core, the convention delegates, it is a condemnation.
|
|
|
|
