This evening on Brit Hume's Special Report the topic was the president's speech last night and the Democratic reponse. Unsurprisingly the response was the usual outrage. It seems the Democrats think that Bush's mention of Iraq in the speech was self serving. Never mind the 140,000 troops we have in harm's way.
The discussion was centered on this question: Can we come together as a nation to fight the war on Terror?
Continue by clicking 'Read More' I will be honest, I am not sure the Democrats really believe we are in a war on Terror. I think for that reason they do not fear abandoning Iraq.
They will deny this and swear they too will keep the nation secure, but how can they do that when they don't believe there is an enemy?
I think they see the terrorists as disenfranchized groups of people, lacking cohesion or organization. The Democrats seem to believe that the Bush administration has used the terrorist attack on 9/11 as an excuse to go to war and maintain control over the domestic policy agenda through fear. So, how can we believe they will fight a war they do not believe in and how can there be unity in such an atmosphere?
Last night Bush made the point that to abandon Iraq would be to embolden AlQaida. I believe this. Not so long ago someone told me that war had no place in the world anymore, we had evolved beyond this sort of useless violent mayhem. I told her that she might have evolved, but the enemy does not believe in evolution.
My question is then, did Bush politicize 9/11 by making a speech last night and talking about the broader war on Terror?
10 comments:
Yes. But the WOT *is* political. Everything involving the country at large and government is political. The real question is was it appropriate. I think it was, no doubt others feel otherwise. But then, some of the others were blatantly political on the same occasion. We are in the midst of a huge political dogfight, it is never going to be pretty.
And really, I hate to fight, but it seems pressed upon us all.
It is only political because the Dems antiwar base has decided to make it so and the Dem leadership does not have the cojones or ability to stand up to them.
It's the antiwar base that has decided that Iraq is not part of the war. And the Democrats are too weak not to take that position themselves.
The Democrats do NOT KNOW HOW to be an opposition party that opposes the party in power in a responsible manner.
They're completely blowing it for themselves and for the country.
But, I have to say, some conservatives think politics is all about them and their 'principles'. So situation be damned, we're gonna throw the bums out because, darnit it's our duty to tell Congressmen how to treat their own constituents.
(How dare Porkbusters tell MY congressman what to do for ME.)
So some conservatives are being just as stupid as the Dems.
And who do Krystal and Lowry think they are opining that we need more troops? As if they know.
I am so sick of BOTH parties right now and I'm sure I'm not alone.
"I am so sick of BOTH parties right now and I'm sure I'm not alone."
Which is what is going to make this the lowest turnout election in US history.
I would like to thank who ever fixed my post. I screwed up making it carry over, but I know how to do it now, I think.
Terrye:
The bleating from the Dems about the mention of Iraq in a 9/11 speech of Iraq was pathetic. Had he not mentioned it, I am sure the bleating would have been equally loud from the same quarters.
Syl:
I agree with you. My organized political party activity has been primarily with the Democrats. I continue, therefore, to get their literature. In addition, of late, I have supported President Bush because of the 9/11/01 situation, and my antipathy towards Kerry. So I get the Republican stuff, too.
I cannot read any of it without rising nausea.
The pros who are generating this stuff really pi** me off.
vnjagvet:
Same here. And the thing is, the more they do it, they more they do it. It is not as if they get the idea an start acting like human beings or something, noooo...they just redouble their name calling and finger pointing efforts.
And the sad part of this is I have always loved the back and forth of politics. I majored in it in college, had a fellowship in Washington during the Kennedy/Nixon campaign of 1960, and participated at varying levels ever since.
It has always been nasty (see, e.g. Drury's Advise and Consent). But now it is "adolescent" nasty, not "grownup" nasty.
vnjagvet:
It is shameful. I cringe sometimes when I hear these people. Reid reminds me of Nellie Olsen in some perverse way.
Which is what is going to make this the lowest turnout election in US history.
Well, I'm not so sure of that. Except for the whiny Republicans who want to punish those in office...but I think even they will end up voting.
Chafee won his primary battle tonite and it was a record vote turnout for a Rep primary in the state.
It's even worse than that.
I think you're right and wrong at the same time. Most Americans believe there is a threat and believe it's serious. But one has to define 'war' to make a serious case that so many have their heads, and bodies, buried in the sands.
There is most definitely disagreement amongst the chattering classes as to the methods to use to combat the threat. 'War' methods or 'criminal' methods.
But in many's eyes, 'war' means battalions of soldiers fighting in Iraq and they reject that. Of course, they don't see the importance of Iraq either. But the fact is that is what 'war' means to them.
And those people, most of them, still do believee there is a threat that we have to counter. Nabbing terrorists, securing ports, not being so confrontational but quietly sticking it to the terrorists whereever we can.
It may be a bit shortsighted, but it isn't as dire as pretending there is no threat.
I think 'war' or 'head in the sand' is a false choice.
I'm with the 'war' crowd, but I don't believe most of America is consciously denying the threat exists.
Post a Comment