I don't understand what Chimp's trying to say about "nuisance"

[Sparkly]

I understand he's trying to bash Kerry for saying we need to make terrorism nothing more than a nuisance to our everyday lives, but I don't understand what the RNC is thinking. What is their point?

Is it that we'll never get down low enough on their color-coded scale and will forever have to be paranoid?

Or, is it that we'll get down so low we can let our guard down, stop the annoying security checks at airports, and leave ports, chem/nuke facilities, and government buildings unsecured?

Is it that we're not going to win as Chimp said recently, so they'll always be terrorizing us, thus always more than a nuisance; or that we're going to win so completely that we'll let our guard down, and won't have any nuisance or thought of terrorism?

I don't know why they think either statement makes sense.

[Texas_Dem]

1. They don't understand what they are saying either.

It is desperation on their part. With no viable record, no accomplishments, no ideas, no clue they will say and do anything. Can you imagine what is going to come out of their mouths in the next three weeks. Get your shovel and your waders out.

[Edwardsgroupie]

2. Bush knew what Kerry meant just as we knew what Bush meant.

Kerry´s statement is that we´d like to make terrorism merely a nuisance simply meant that he wants to defeat it so throroughly that terrorism is no longer first and foremost on everybody´s minds. He said you never can completely eliminate prostitution and other crimes, and the same with terrorism. Bush knew what he meant, as did everybody else----and this is the mirror image of Bush´s statement that we can never really win against terrorism, meaning that some threat of it, no matter how small, will always be with us. Democrats knew what Bush meant as well. The two statements are essentially the same, with the same meanings, and have both been disingenuously exploited by the other side.

[Sparkly]

4. So what's the RNC trying to get out of this?

Considering Chimp is on record as saying it "can't be won," is he now saying "it will be won, and then some?"

Is he saying we'll "go back to pre-9/11 thinking?"

Is he saying we'll actually, literally hunt down ALL terrorists like an elaborate game of whack-a-mole, and then we're done?

How is any of this resonating among Republicans? I just don't get it.

[ewagner]

3. A better explanation

might go something like this:

Before 9/11, we knew terrorism existed but we only had to put up with the nuisance of more security checks at the airport but you didn't govern your life in fear of terrorism. That's what we want to return to. No endless wars. No living in fear. No restrictions on our liberty out of fear of terrorists. Vigilant? Sure. Fearful? NEVER.

[Sparkly]

8. Even the quote out of context made sense to me

I like your words too, but understood Kerry's.

I don't know what they're thinking the "gotcha" is supposed to be.

[wishlist]

5. They seem to be grasping at straws in effort to make Bush look tougher

I don't get it either- seems like Kerry made a legitimate point that lots of Americans agree with- that the goal is to work against terrorism effectively so that it no longer poses a huge threat requiring constant obsessive focus.

[tomfodw]

6. They are trying to spin this as if...

...Kerry is saying terrorism is only a "nuisance" now, instead of the permanent mortal threat Bush has spent the past 3 years using as his justification for everything. If you actually read Kerry's entire statement, of course, it is as clear as it could possibly be that it is his goal for the future to contain terrorism so that we can get on with our lives.

And what's wrong with that? Do we want to spend eternity on a permanent war footing? (Well, Bush obviously does.)

As i posted on my blog, here is what it all boils down to:

Kerry wants the country to get back to being normal
Bush doesn't.

Bush needs to keep us afraid of terrorism; otherwise, we would take a deep breath and think rationally about what a disaster he has been. His only hope is to keep us so rattled and anxious that we will reflexively vote for him out of fear. So, he has to simultanously brag that he has kept us safer yet keep us scared. And he calls Kerry a flip-flopper.

The problem with Kerry's statement is that it unfortunately lends itself so easily to being misrepresented. I hate to say he should have known better, but considering how horrible the press is, and how vicious Karl Rove is, you want to limit as much as possible their ability to distort what you say.

To give George W. Bush the absolute benefit of the doubt, it is possible that he may sincerely believe that Kerry is wrong, that there is no chance of us ever going back to the way things used to be. That terrorism can never be contained so that it is just a nuisance. That John Kerry is being unrealistic. It's possible that he thinks this.

But that's not how they are going to spin this.

[Sparkly]

9. But are they saying "it will always be more than a mere nuisance"

or are they saying "we will win so that it won't even be a nuisance?"

I'm not sure they're saying the former.

I'm not sure WHAT they're saying.

[endnote]

7. They are making it up....

Kerry said something obvious: we need to return to a situation in which terrorists are not changing the way we live but are a nuisance (like a snowstorm). Bush himself said "you cannot win the war on terror". The reason is that there can always be people who are unhappy about the way things are and resort to violence to change it. You cannot eliminate that, unless you have a tight dictatorship.