Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 09, 2004

Killing Them Loudly

by koreyel

There is absolutely no comparison between these two candidates. None whatsoever. One is clearly superior to the other.

That this election is evenly divided speaks volumes about how shallowly engaged Americans are in politics.

Which is to say, the sheeple aren't thinking much at all, rather they are reacting to fear. Specifically, fear for the big bad terra wolf. Never mind that automobiles murder over 100 Americans a day. It's the big bad terra wolf that is going to get you. Tomorrow probably if not sooner.

That's the sophistication of the American voter. It really is chicken shit.

And so we have this spectacle of a man with a command of topics, and a vision for America having to repeatedly belittle himself so as to appeal to
America's runaway fears.

How many times did Kerry say he was going to KILL KILL KILL terrorists? Disgusting.

Disgusting that he has to so belittle himself. Surely his parents taught him not to make such spree use of the word KILL. He is educated. He knows better.

But even more disgusting is that the sheep demand such cheap red meat. That they need to be so desperately and artificially assured. Poor things. They need to be pampered and petted, and told repeatedly that the big bad terra wolf won't get them because we are going to KILL him first.

Bah humbug.

I'm sick of the whole thing. Walt Whitman once said: "To have great poets, there must be great audiences." I wonder what Old Walt would say about trying to make a democracy out of a herd of sheep?

Posted by b on October 9, 2004 at 06:30 AM | Permalink


from my persective, worse than kerry saying "kill kill kill"

remember, he's an actual decorated war hero, and killing - specifically, mass murder in the service of national policy - is the business of the military

is his assertion that he has a plan to win in iraq - didn't he get the memo that we've already lost?

unless by "win" he means "get out as soon as possible" - in which case, i admire his ability to express himself so unclearly -

as the prophet muhammed, peace be upon him, once stated, "speak to people in accordance with their understanding"

may the creative forces of the universe have mercy on our souls, if any

Posted by: mistah charley | Oct 9, 2004 7:11:48 AM | 1

Kerry's KILL line made me cringe too. Now that you've brought it up Koreyel, we have to consider the game he is playing. For now, after hearing him last night, I am willing to give credit to Kerry for his creativity in making stuff up to get votes. It is probably necessary.

F'rinstance promising to win in Iraq. Now we know these guys are not stupid enough to believe that victory is possible, but he has to say it to win over that fear-drenched margin of undecideds. Same with promising to kill terrorists. Dumb on its face, but necessary to say in this weird world we have allowed to be built around us.

You are invited to come back and slay me in '05 when pres Kerry nukes Bahgdad and sends thousands of special forces on search-and-destroy missions. For now I give him credit for being smarter than that.

Posted by: rapt | Oct 9, 2004 11:38:33 AM | 2

Eighteen hours after the "debate," and I'm becoming more and more disgusted with the mere idea of Bush--the mere memory of his behavior in that room. He isn't just sick and twisted, he's a mean little sadist who takes pleasure in beating up on other, bigger people--Charles Gibson, for example. Bush is nothing but a mean, nasty, little boy. Some of Kerry's stiffness--and at times he can be pretty stiff in these "debates"--must come from the terrible self-restraint he has to exercise. That he can actually function in this environment is as a strong a reason as any to support him (and maybe, just maybe, he's driving Bush crazy).

Posted by: alabama | Oct 9, 2004 4:25:54 PM | 3

Both candidates know too little of the issues tearing apart Islam today. Bush buries them in the buzz word terror and Kerry speaks of somehow winning the war with international help. I really do hope that when addressing their close associates, the conversation is more sophisticated than what I've heard from both candidates so far. Who is briefing these people?

Posted by: Diogenes | Oct 9, 2004 7:43:22 PM | 4

Listen people, the following is a clear description of the rationale for the GWOT, taken from the second debate. Bush has 50% support, because people think it is plausible. How plausible is that Saddam would give away the weapons, which are supposed to protect his regime, to a foreign group?

Mr. Bush: And secondly, it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Osama bin Laden. The war on terror is to make sure that these terrorist organizations do not end up with weapons of mass destruction. That's what the war on terror's about. Of course we're going to find Osama bin Laden. We've already got 75 percent of his people. And we're on the hunt for him. But this is a global conflict that requires firm resolve.

And by the way, if the new al-Kaida is merely a bunch of separated off-spring cells and can not function as a whole, then Bush is right to come up with the 75% figure. Those off-spring cells may do more small-scale, local bombing attacks, but as a whole al-Kaida is not able to make a sophisticated large-scale operation.

This is me, playing the devil's advocate.

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 9, 2004 9:54:52 PM | 5

Big bad teror wolf is going to bomb your child's school!!!
Maybe as soon as tomorrow!!!
Hurry somebody hurry!
Someone call that wolf-killing, patriotic, Texas cowboy to pen the sheeple from harm! Like right now! Hurry!

Yeah right.
I am shivering in my lamb's wool underwear over here.

Bah Humbug America.

It is time to stop pissing your pants in fear. You are starting to stink like a bunch of scaredy-cats with urine-drenched fur.

It's time to grow up little boys and girls. Time to start acting like men and woman rather than sheep ripe for shearing.

Yeah... damn straight: I am chiding you. And yeah damn straight: you need to be chided. Your fear of the boogie man has become obsessive-compulsive.

Grow up! Show some backbone you lisping sissies!

There is something really disarming about a nation, armed with guns to the teeth, having its teeth-chattering away in fear.

It really is unbecoming.
Call it faux manly republicanism...
A nation of panty-waists and chicken shit artists.
Shiver. Shake. Whimper. Mewl.

Don't you remember anything from your own great history?

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

Repeat after me:

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

Posted by: koreyel | Oct 9, 2004 9:57:23 PM | 6

I don’t get it. I really don’t.

Kerry has to say Kill Terrarists and I will Win in Iraq and so on - because that is what people want to hear?..?

What about if he said:

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq. Many Iraqis are dying too. Iraq is unstable, there is no rule of law, no democracy. The invasion of Iraq does not further American interests. Our duty now is to bring our troops home safe and to do what we can to help stabilise Iraq. We need to start spending some of that allocated money, help the UN to organise elections. We should build hospitals and send medical supplies. Children are dying for lack of care. It is time for the Goodness and Greatness of America to shine like a beacon of hope once again. (note to speechwriter: do a good job on that last point.)

And if he went on:

There hasn’t been a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11, and even the official Gvmt. reports show that terrorism is abating world wide. Terrorism must be fought with stealth and intelligence, not bombs. I will continue that fight (add some detail..)

Iraq was not a threat to America. Saddam did not have WMD, and there were no links between AlQ and Saddam, or Iraq as a whole. We know that now; the time has come for honesty, responsibility, reparation, and a return to a legitimate furthering of America’s interests - first, the interests of its own people, in the schools, communities (etc. etc.)

Are people trying to say he would not be elected if he said that, or something like it?

I can’t believe it. It would be a landslide. There would be people partying in the streets all over America..Every TV station in the world would suspend all its programs and throw confetti about. Internet providers would crash because of the volume of congratulatory traffic...

Kerry is not saying such things for one of two reasons:

a) he himself thinks that the US has no choice before it except the decisions taken in the past three years, which are in direct continuity with previous history;

b) he is a patsy, a spokesperson, beholden to others, even if the relation is not explicit.

-- both may pertain.

Posted by: Blackie | Oct 10, 2004 11:32:25 AM | 7

i would very much like kerry to give the speech you wrote, blackie - but he's not going to -

either because he doesn't agree with it[your alternative a],

or doesn't think he could say it and get elected[which is less than honest, but maybe part of practicing "the art of the possible"],

or his masters have have forbidden him [your alternative b] -

if he's elected, his actions will in the end show us which is correct

Posted by: mistah charley | Oct 10, 2004 2:24:51 PM | 8

Yes - and I hope he is elected, but still don't think he has much of a chance.

Posted by: Blackie | Oct 10, 2004 2:47:43 PM | 9

Yes - and I hope he is elected, but still don't think he has much of a chance.

Posted by: Blackie | Oct 10, 2004 2:48:17 PM | 10

Yahoo has had this headline up all day today:

Mathematicians Offer Help in Terror Fight

No... it is not what you think.

I mean... did you expect them to assemble some stats to show you have a far greater chance of dying by a car accident than by an arab terrorist?

No mathematicians know better than that.
They've run the numbers.

They know that probability says they ought not to get on the wrong side of the Bush administration... or else,

there goes tenure,
there goes the grant,
there goes easy access to airline flights.

So they are going to play the bogie man game too.

Here comes tenure.
Here comes the grants.
Here comes that vacation to Bermuda.

Smart mathematicians. Very smart.

Posted by: koreyel | Oct 10, 2004 6:09:56 PM | 11

@koreyel... re professional academics -- right on. been enjoying your posts lately.

Posted by: DeAnander | Oct 10, 2004 11:21:59 PM | 12


Your alternative b) -patsy- is right on. That puts us in the uncomfortable position of begging for something we don't want. That thought kind of presses me toward supporting the Dub in the interest if getting this nightmare over sooner and more finally.

Let us hope that, as I said upthread, Kerry has no intention of following through on these promises to win in Iraq and kill more tarrsts.

The reptiles are in charge, and some of them are very smart.

Posted by: rapt | Oct 11, 2004 1:16:01 PM | 13

@ rapt: "That thought kind of presses me toward supporting the Dub in the interest if getting this nightmare over sooner and more finally."

While I agree with Blackie, somewhat, there is more at stake.

Right-wing legal activist Clint Bolick has said, "This election could be a twofer--we win the White House and the Supreme Court."
A *whole* lot more.

Posted by: beq | Oct 11, 2004 2:06:15 PM | 14

Thanks for reeling me back in beq.

Posted by: rapt | Oct 11, 2004 4:25:11 PM | 15

@koreyel said:
you have a far greater chance of dying by a car accident than by an arab terrorist

It's not the possibility, it's the scale. Bush promised to prevent anything big-scale. Up until 2001 we all thought that terrorists want to make a political statement through not necessarily big-scale, but frequent violence. It turned out different. Their plans do include mass murder, if they get the means.

Quote from the article:

You don't need political influence, military might or economic resources to plant bombs or take hostages; but without brains, terrorism is nothing more than random violence.

Look at my Bush quote from above. Bush thinks that it is worth to trade a small well-organised secret organisation for a bigger formless structureless guerilla front which uses it's resources for IEDs, head-chopping, pay local gangs for hostage taking, etc.

Bush thinks Al-Kaida COULD get weapons from Saddam, because Saddam DID support terrorists (families of Palestinian suicide bombers) before and USED WMDs against Iran, the Kurds, Israel and the Shia. Therefore it was smart to close that shop.

Kerry thinks Al-Kaida would rather BUY loose WMDs in Russia, than work with Saddam.

The whole debate should concentrate on the following questions: Do regimes obtain WMDs to protect themselves from regime change (doomsday device) or do they really want to use them once they got them (first strike capacity)? Did Saddam want to risk that Baghdad would become a glass crater?

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Oct 11, 2004 5:23:22 PM | 16

Kerry's plan to win the war is to ask a frenchman 'to be the last soldier to die for a mistake'. The french are not so gullible, but perhaps they could be bribed by new contracting rights to loot Iraq alongside the Americans.

They've already got Saddam. They should just declare 'victory' and get out. But they won't because they didn't really want Saddam. They want the oil and the war profits and the military bases.

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 12, 2004 6:05:55 PM | 17

The comments to this entry are closed.