Thanks, Nancy
The Wall Street Journal nails the Democrats' true intentions: To try to establish their own partisan foreign policy while they wait for the President's term to be up. As a result, they send mixed message of weakness to America's adversaries, signaling that President Bush lacks domestic support -- which, in turn, emboldens our enemies and makes it more difficult for any American pressure to succeed.
It's impossible whether to know that they're too shortsighted to understand or too misguided to care, but what the Democrats should understand is that this game hurts them, too, in the only realm they seem to care about, i.e., politics. By provoking bad behavior by our adversaries, they make bolder enemy action more likely, which -- in turn -- may prompt the American people to turn to the leaders they trust to defend them with vigor. And that isn't the Democrats.
It's impossible whether to know that they're too shortsighted to understand or too misguided to care, but what the Democrats should understand is that this game hurts them, too, in the only realm they seem to care about, i.e., politics. By provoking bad behavior by our adversaries, they make bolder enemy action more likely, which -- in turn -- may prompt the American people to turn to the leaders they trust to defend them with vigor. And that isn't the Democrats.
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:44 AM
7 Comments:
What specifically don't you like about the Baker-Hamilton Iraqi Study Group Report? It says to engage neighboring countries and clearly AWOL Bush and five deferment Cheney do not have to gonads to do that.
While Pelosi is traveling throughout the Middle East, Cheney is ranting nonsense with Limbaugh.
Bush's closest ally tells him to shut the heck up.... No wonder Pelosi, as third highest in government needs to travel abroad in an attempt to clean up the mess.
From today's Guardian, we learn that the Bush administration wanted to escalate tensions with Iran after the 15 British sailors were seized two weeks ago. How predictable; for Bush and Cheney, any resort to diplomacy is a token of weakness. Bush offered to use American naval forces provocatively in order to threaten Iran.
Instead, Blair told them to stay out of it. He also asked Bush & Co. to tone down the rhetoric while Britain tried to free the hostages without provoking a war.
Hence Bush's closest ally in his Middle East fiasco has concluded that he cannot be trusted with any sensitive issues. No wonder that the success of the British negotiations has sent Bush's apologists into orbit. It's an insult to everything their guy stands for, not to give war a chance.
Considering the Guardian is not necessarily a rah-rah Bush rag to say the least, I'm sure your assessment of the article is also skewed in an anti-Bush manner. Without having read it, I would say that it was a simple case of Bush once again stepping up to the plate and offering support should Blair wish to kick Iranian ass, and Blair simply chose to try a different course. That's his choice and Bush most certainly respects the decision of the one Brit with sense to understand the stakes in this war. At the same time, the Nimitz was making it's way to the area to join two carrier groups already there. If you don't think the Iranians were aware of this, and that it didn't affect their move, your goofy.
I vote for goofy!
You already did, twice! But Bush can't succeed himself.
Well, ETC, what does that make YOUR candidates if they couldn't garner more votes than Goofy? Even if he DID steal the election, that only works if it's close. Face it. W's a far sight more intelligent than YOU can see.
Finally! Something genuinely funny from Planet Opposite.
Good one, Earth!
Post a Comment
<< Home