John Tierney's Saturday NYT column was a brave attempt to deflate the hysteria that surrounds US terrorism coverage. What caught my eye was this section, near the bottom, natch:
"I think that we'd be better off reconsidering our definition of victory in the war on terror. Calling it a war makes it sound like a national fight against a mighty enemy threatening our society. But right now the terrorists look more like a small group of loosely organized killers who are less like an army than like lightning bolts -- scary but rarely fatal."
The lyrics are new, but the melody is faintly familiar. Wasn't that the gist of what John Kerry was saying in the very same newspaper's Magazine last October? Don't get me wrong, Kerry was a horrible candidate whose explanation for his tardy response to the Swift Boat attacks -- basically, "I wanted to respond right away, but my staff wouldn't let me" -- tells you everything you need to know about his campaign, and his character.
But if "nuisance" is such a horrible way to want to regard terrorism, how come the conservatives aren't sharpening the knives for John "lightning bolt" Tierney?
UPDATE 11:20 PM PST
Laura, below, vouches for Kerry's character. I trust Laura. I guess behavior isn't indicative, and testimonials from semi-anonymous commenters is.
For one thing, he "won all the debates". Didn't he trade those points in for frequent flyer miles? If not, he should, those miles expire before you know it.
As to what other Dem might have done better, that's a useful exercise of brain cells at this point in time. What about who might have been a better Pope during WW2, while we're at it?