It's the Lying, Stupid
This NY Times story is headlined: "Bush Contends Partisan Critics Hurt the War Effort."
It's clear, from the text of the speech, that the headline is misleading. Here's what Bush said:
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."
In other words, Bush wasn't calling for the cessation of partisan criticism -- he was objecting to the use of "false charges" as part of it.
But if you really think about it -- when Democrats criticize the progress we're making in Iraq, assert that foreign policy is being formulated by a cabal, when they complain about the failure to find Bin Laden or Zarqawi, when they press for a scheduled withdrawal (even when they realize this will simply give the terrorists a timetable and assurance that we're leaving whether or not the job is done) -- well, how, exactly, does any of that help the war effort?
It's clear, from the text of the speech, that the headline is misleading. Here's what Bush said:
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."
In other words, Bush wasn't calling for the cessation of partisan criticism -- he was objecting to the use of "false charges" as part of it.
But if you really think about it -- when Democrats criticize the progress we're making in Iraq, assert that foreign policy is being formulated by a cabal, when they complain about the failure to find Bin Laden or Zarqawi, when they press for a scheduled withdrawal (even when they realize this will simply give the terrorists a timetable and assurance that we're leaving whether or not the job is done) -- well, how, exactly, does any of that help the war effort?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:27 PM
9 Comments:
But if you really think about it-- when Republicans used the Iraq war as a political wedge issue prior to the 2002 election, Karl Rove slanders Democrats as wanting to provide therapy for the 9/11 hijackers, when the Vice President publically condones torture, when Halliburton engages in activity that in an earlier age would have been classified as war profiteering, and when parents of patriots serving in Iraq are forced to hold fund raisers to buy their loved ones body armor -- well, how, exactly, daoes any of that help the war effort?
when Republicans used the Iraq war as a political wedge issue prior to the 2002 election
It was apparently very effective, too.
Was the wedge between the McGovernite Democrats (such as Kucinich) and the Scoop Jackson Democrats (such as Lieberman or Zell Miller)?
elarson, that was a really funny comment.
No, I was talking about the use of the Iraq war as a campaign tactic and casting aspersions on the patriotism of anyone who was not a Republican. We were about to go to war, and Karl Rove decided that the Republican base was the only public support that was needed.
Yet another lesson of Viet Nam that the right wing was too smart to learn.
I particularly liked how President Bush took Veterans' Day and turned it into George W. Bush day.
And what does Carol and the rest of the right wing say?
Nice temper tantrum. Mr. President. Way to honor the sacrifice of patriots.
I asked a legitmate question: where was the wedge placed?
"I asked a legitmate question: where was the wedge placed?", said eLarson.
I thought I answered, but I must not have been clear--so here is a reformulated version of the answer.
The wedge by having the President Bush fly around the country into states like Missouri, and Georgia, and personally bash the very Democratic Senators who supported him as being weak on National Security. One of the President's oft repeated claims in 2002 was that the Senate, controlled by Democrats--the same Senate who voted for his resolution--was "not interested in the security of the American people."
The President, by going after Max Cleland and others--by attacking their patriotism after they supported his war of choice--the President made Iraq a partisan war. The President's party rode Iraq the election issue to victory on 2002 and 2004. Rather than rallying the country to support the troops, the Bush Administration consciously decided to rally the 50%+1 who would vote Republican.
That cynical eploitation of the public is precisely why the American people aren't going to fall for the President's new "Blame the Democrats" strategy. The President made it clear that this is his war made possible only by the patriotism of the Republican party.
He who troubles his own house shall inherit the wind. Proverbs 11:29
Ah, you sense a betrayal.
I believe Bush derided various Democrats for their perceived featherbedding the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of unions.
"Rather than rallying the country to support the troops, the Bush Administration consciously decided to rally the 50%+1 who would vote Republican."
Oh boo-freakin'-hoo. Cry me a river. The President has bent over every which way to accommodate Democrats--particularly on social issues--and a fat lot of good that's done him.
You can only reach out so long. If the person you are reaching out to is sitting on their hands, there comes a time to shrug and move on.
eLarson wrote, "Ah, you sense a betrayal."
Precisely. We had an Adminsitration that preyed on the trust people place in the Chief Executive to launch a pre-emptive war. A war that was launched primarily to boost the President's political capital.
I'm sorry you don't think having a President mislead us into war of choice is something to feel concerned about.
A war that was launched primarily to boost the President's political capital.
Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
I'm sorry you don't think having a President mislead us into war of choice is something to feel concerned about.
I was certainly concerned back in 1998 when any military action against anyone was seemingly timed to distract from testimony against that president. It would only be fair of me to be concerned now, and I would be... if I believe that is what happened.
Post a Comment
<< Home