Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here

[rniel]

That sure worked for the attack in london didn't it. Someone should've told those pesky terrorists that they were only supposed to go and stay in iraq so we could kill them there not attack elsewhere.

[CBHagman]

1. See the link to the article below.

The talking point about it being better to fight terrorists over in Baghdad than in New York or Washington came from Frank Luntz. I hear Bush and other Republicans use it all the time. It's total horse manure, it's manipulative and cynical and dangerous, but the 'cans keep using it. Let's see if they stop now that people realize their empty words (and lack of competence) didn't save the people of Bali, Madrid, or London.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54906-2004Jun19.html

[endarkenment]

2. stop? rather 'jump-shift'

They don't stop. They don't admit mistakes. They re-frame. London will be used to justify perpetual war just as 9-11 was used. Already they are gathering the leaders and soon we will all be singing god save the queen and we will 'stay the course' and 'not back down' and whatever other nice phrases their phrasologists can come up with.

[CBHagman]

4. I'm afraid you're right about the 'cans and their minions.

As James Wolcott put it, they're never sorry and they're never wrong.

I do think, though, that the general public can be brought to understand that what the U.S. administration is doing is not stopping or decreasing terror. In fact, the policies that the Bush administration has pursued have created greater dangers and more long-term problems.

[flpoljunkie]

6. And, yet, unbelievably, today on MSNBC McCain repeated this line!

Although, I don't think you will hear this anymore from Tony Blair, and not from Dubya today--if he or his handlers have a clue.

[CBHagman]

7. Do you know which program that was?

I just searched the MSNBC site and couldn't find a link (yet). It's a new story, so perhaps nothing's available, transcript-wise, as yet.

But I'm going to call every office of every crappy 'can who uses that line from now on. If I'd had time today, I'd have called the White House comment line to mention that the Bush strategy has been a failure, at the cost of thousands of lives around the world and dozens of lives today in London.

[flpoljunkie]

9. I believe Brian Williams was interviewing him. Just caught the tail end.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Here is a link to the story and video of the entire interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8499086/

[CBHagman]

13. Thanks!

I'll have to get to that later on. The link is MUCH appreciated.

[uppityperson]

3. London is over there, across the big blue wet thing.

Technically, London is not part of the USA, so Mr.bush is right again. Hahahaha tony, you thought Mr.bush included you in those speeches. :sarcasm:

[Beaverhausen]

5. Can the war on terror ever be won?

I don't think so. There will always be people somewhere who will want to hurt others.

We have to stop letting them make us think the war on terror will ever be won...be over.

[Hissyspit]

8. This is what I thought of first thing when I heard about the attacks.

How ridiculous the logic of that statement is.

[damntexdem]

11. No, no, no! Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

That says nothing about where they'll fight us.

[radar]

12. The Left Coaster blog wrote something

Basically, "let them suffer over there so we don't have to sacrifice anything here...."

What good is an anti-terror policy if your only consolation is that everyone else in the world suffers except you?
...But to your bubble-headed neighbors who get their news from the bubble-headed local TV anchors, who cares as long as it is someone else who gets killed?
What Good Is An "Anywhere But Here" Anti-Terror Policy? Thursday :: Jul 7, 2005
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004815.php

*Proud to be an American - able to lounge about in luxury, without sacrificing even disruption of this evening's television programming, while the rest of the world blows itself up
:sarcasm: