The Candidates Off Different Visions (FReeper project -- Rewrite sentence for this guy)

The Wichita Eagle ^ | September 22, 2004 | Randy Scholfield

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

	Posted on Wed, Sep. 22, 2004
	Iraq The candidates offer different visions With six weeks left before Americans choose a president, the war in Iraq has emerged as the overriding campaign issue. The two candidates laid out starkly different views of the war this week in back-to-back speeches -- and offered voters a clear choice. Sen. John Kerry, speaking Monday at New York University, said clearly -- for the first time -- that, knowing what we know now (no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, no ties with al-Qaida), he would not have waged a war to topple Saddam Hussein. "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." And he blamed President Bush for "colossal failures of judgment" at every turn. His four-point plan (gain more international help, ensure prompt elections, hasten reconstruction and speed up training of Iraqi security forces) contained no real surprises or new specifics. But Mr. Kerry implicitly rejected the aggressiveness of President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war, and indicated that he would fight a "smarter" and more narrowly focused war on terror, with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden as his principal targets, and with more emphasis on multilateral alliances and consensus. This was Mr. Kerry's strongest, most coherent critique of Iraq to date, but will it overcome a record of overly nuanced and shifting positions? Mr. Bush, delivering his annual speech Tuesday to the United Nations, issued an unapologetic defense of the Iraq war and tied it to larger ideals and goals. Far from being in chaos, Iraq and Afghanistan "are on the path to democracy and freedom," he said, and that "is good for the long-term security of us all." He admitted tough work ahead fighting insurgents, but declared that "the proper response to difficulty is not to retreat; it is to prevail." Mr. Bush offered a few olive twigs of multilateral rhetoric, but it was mainly for show: He made it plain that he will continue to lead, whether the world accepts his leadership or not. For now, Mr. Bush holds a wide lead in polls on who offers the best leadership in Iraq and the war on terror. But the rosy rhetoric is starting to look out of touch with the grim realities on the ground in Iraq. It's still an open question whether Americans want a war leader of complex vision and pragmatic consensus building, or one who offers black-and-white certitude and crusading, "bear any burden" idealism. Voters will have a chance to hear more in the coming weeks. And to decide: Stay the course, or change course? For the board, Randy Scholfield

---

© 2004 Wichita Eagle and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.kansas.com

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

FReeper Project

Rewrite this sentence: "It's still an open question whether Americans want a war leader of complex vision and pragmatic consensus building, or one who offers black-and-white certitude and crusading, "bear any burden" idealism."

Send your rewrites to rscholfield@wichitaeagle.com.

[ClearCase_guy]

I think he's trying to say:

"It's still an open question whether Americans want a wise and benevolent leader, or a booger-headed Republican."

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

rscholfield@wichitaeagle.com

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Oh I know what he is trying to say. We need to tell him what he SHOULD have said. Does American want an anti-war, traitorous flip-flopper who will not defend us against terrorists unless France gives their OK, or a patriotic, strong and courageous leader who will defend us against the terrorists with a coalition of the willing.

[Spok]

Kerry clearly wants to fight a war without political risk, as did Clinton when he bombed Kosovo and aspirin factories. Risks avoided by politicians become risks assumed by American citizens, like those who worked in the WTC and on flight #93. Kerry finds that transfer of risk acceptable, George W. Bush does not. That's the difference.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Ignore my link. The address is correct.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Exactly. If you would tell this guy what we are really choosing between I would greatly appreciate it.

rscholfield@wichitaeagle.com

[Paleo Conservative]

With six weeks left before Americans choose a president, the war in Iraq has emerged as the overriding campaign issue.

The war on Islamic terrorism has been the overriding campaign issue since 9/11/2001.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Can you change my title from "off" to "Offer." I apologize for the typo.

[bobsunshine]

I'm furious. If we let the lies continue, they will become the truth. I've just sent a email to all the cable news primetime shows that they need to report that Kerry has falsely stated the facts. According to the 9/11 commission and the Senate commission, there WERE ties to al-Qaeda and Iraq. See the weekly Standard report by Daniel McKivergan.

[tioga]

Tis the age old choice between good and evil.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Tell Kerry apologist Randy what you think. Randy Scholfield

[bobsunshine]

I'm furious. If we let the lies continue, they will become the truth. I've just sent a email to all the cable news primetime shows that they need to report that Kerry has falsely stated the facts. According to the 9/11 commission and the Senate commission, there WERE ties to al-Qaeda and Iraq. See the weekly Standard report by Daniel McKivergan.

[bobsunshine]

Just sent him an email about this.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Bless you! Thanks!

[bobsunshine]

I also sent an email on getting the facts right to Mr. Roth of Columbia Education (zr2102@columbia.edu). Here is his response after my email note to him:

I WROTE:
One thing that everyone seems not to report, because they are so excited about Kerry's anti-war stand, is the fact that Mr. Kerry is twisting the truth again.

Sen. John Kerry, speaking Monday at New York University, said clearly -- for the first time -- that, "knowing what we know now (no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, no ties with al-Qaeda) he would not have gone to war".

According to the 9/11 Commission, "there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda". Also, see pages 66,67.

According to Tommy Franks "One Known terrorist, Zarqawi, had joined al-Qaeda" and is now in Iraq fighting our troops. See the report in the Weekly Standard by Daniel McKivergan.

People can disagree over the need to go to war, but they should not deny facts in order to make it easier to sell their position.

You need to state to the American people that there were ties. It is your responsibility to do so.

HIS RESPONSE:

thanks for your note. i don't accept that the fact that zarqawi is now in iraq means there were pre-war ties btwn saddam and al qaeda. the point is, was there a working relationship, and the 9/11 commission said clearly that there wasn't. by your standard, just about every
country in the world would have "ties" to al qaeda.