There wasn't anything like the signing ceremony on the Missouri at the end of the Cold War, either. Indeed, it's somewhat hard to point to the ending date or event. But something over a decade later, now that the Cold War is over, does anyone doubt that we still, ultimately, won "it" -- Cuba and North Korea notwithstanding?

Kerry: I was in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968. Big Whoop. He exagerrated at best, possibly lied, possibly for political gain and was caught in it. He looks like an a$$.

W: I don't care where Osama is. Uh...isn't he at the very least the figure-head of the "War on Terror/Terrorism"? His whole administration looks incompetant.

I love how Republicans explain that if Kerry made Vietnam the basis of his reelection he should expect to take criticism on it. Well, if Bush is going to try to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, he should expect to be called out when he does the same.

http://www.theglitteringeye.com/archives/000222.html

Could the Cold War be won? For forty years we apparently didn't think so. Then Reagan came along and by gum we won the Cold War.

If the objective is merely to manage it, not only won't we win. We will lose.

I am very glad that Mr. Bush re-stated today his intent to win and glad that Kerry-Edwards took him to task for the earlier statement. I'd rather have both sides bidding on who can be tougher in the War on Terror than bidding on a prescription drug benefit (for example).

Terrorism is a means. Period. It cannot be warred upon, only defended against. Keep that firmly in mind, and ask yourself, truly, how well this Administration has shored up our defenses against Terrorism, as compared with how well it has made war abroad against two countries. If you do this we will be well on the way to FINALLY thinking straight about what has happened to us since 9/11.

Best of luck vdibart -- you're going to need it....

Dave

And this doesn't apply to Kerry? My point is that there's the appearance of consistency enforced or undermined by partisan attacks and then there's genuine consistency. I believe much of the "flip-flop" attack on Kerry is the partisan attack nature and when you really look at what he said in most cases there is as legitimate reason for his statement as any excuse W, Cheney, etc. use.

The steel tariff debate is that he originally spoke out in favor of free trade (no tariffs), then he imposed tariffs on foreign import of steel, then he repealed the tariff. There is room for various interpretation of the sequence, just as there is for most of Kerry's infamous "flops", but Bush doesn't get skewered nearly as much as Kerry does.

I have recently heard Condi Rice talk about "jihad," so maybe a shift will occur.

"Terror" is an emotion.

"Terrorism" is a methodology.

To frame it in such terms is like saying we can win the "war against suicide bombing," or that we can win a "war against high-speed low-level strafing runs." Such a war would be, by definition, unwinnable. Those are just tools in the enemy's inventory (the former), or in ours (the latter).

It's long past time the people in high places start calling the enemy by its real name instead of by its methods and tactics.

By this do you mean real political policy statements or a battle fought using politically spun sound bites? I mean are we talking on the order of "I don't care where Osama is" or "I voted against the bill because I didn't want to increase deficit spending and I wanted to send a message to W."?

I can think of only one or two Kerry statements that are truly worrisome (Cambodia is the most obvious one). The rest are all spin and can be proven as such. Can W say the same about steel tariffs, finding Osama, nation building, etc.?