« kickball 2: game four | Main | u.s. debt: a historical and international perspective »
September 29, 2006
what is really at stake in november
Bob Woodward the "lap dog of the White House" (as labeled by many liberals) has a new book titled "State of Denial" that is a predictable hit piece on the Bush administration. Woodward has made a fantastic career out of his Watergate fame, but has offered little of in terms of reporting since the seventies (or since I was born). It was hilarious how many of the liberal blogs out there were so quick to throw him under the bus for just stating the obvious about the Plame non-scandal. Now he's a talking point for the Left.
Given the Mainstream Media's fanatical devotion to all things bashing Bush I am sure Woodward's book will be the talk of K Street this weekend. This whole situation in Iraq is disgusting. Bush's biggest mistake in Iraq was not paving the place when we invaded. He cowered to the pressure of maintaining low casualties. If this conflict is as serious as his rhetoric suggests we should have imposed our will on the people of Iraq. The liberals were always going to be unhappy; I will never forget Senator Clinton rolling her eyes during the speech before joint session of Congress two weeks after 9/11. That was at least an honest reflection of what liberals felt during that time. What do Democrats care about? I'll let Clinton speak for herself.
"Everything that we care about is at stake," she said. "On any issue you can mention" -from energy independence to global climate change and the cost of health care - "we won't deal with it if we don't have Democrats in charge."
There it is, no mention of the War on Terror, just like Tom Harkin's website. Fighting Global Warming and socialized health care, that's a winning ticket. Instead of offering any kind of logical plan to win this war, the ideological opposition blames all our problems on our country. Islamic fascism is a product of our support for Israel, and presence in world affairs. Has anyone thought about what would happen if the world's most powerful nation adopted a policy of isolationism?
The unfortunate truth is that the United States has adopted the role of world police. Sometimes the police do things they are not supposed to do, look at Los Angeles. The idea that our military is somehow perfect, and tragedies do not happen on the battlefield is naïve. Self-loathing has become so bad on the Left they are incapable of feeling any pride in our military. Is it any wonder that a draft dodging former US president who once said he "loathed the military" would be upset when asked could he "have done more to capture Bin Laden?" This same president's only comments about the first attack on the World Trade Center cautioned against an "over-reaction." History proves that this was not the proper "reaction" to the attack. This type of failure to understand the gravity of the situation is precisely why the Left is incapable of conveying a winning strategy for the threat the world faces. They not even sure there's a problem as Senator Clinton's remarks indicate. Fortunately there's a never-ending supply of reading material that fits their worldview; George W. Bush is the source of all the world's problems.
Posted by nemov at September 29, 2006 5:52 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nemov.net/cgi/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1057
Comments
"Bush's biggest mistake in Iraq was not paving the place when we invaded. He cowered to the pressure of maintaining low casualties. If this conflict is as serious as his rhetoric suggests we should have imposed our will on the people of Iraq."
I agree. We should have just nuked the whole middle east a long time ago and got it over with. Then we wouldn't have to worry about energy dependence, islamic fundamentalism, or american soldiers dying. Can anyone tell me why we haven't done that?
Posted by: brown at September 30, 2006 1:25 PM