Despite our current problems in Iraq, and the various mistakes by Bush, I'm stil a cautiously optimistic supporter, and still believe it was right to take out Saddam, for numerous reasons. We can debate the supposed links between Saddam and al-qaeda (certainly debatable) and WMDs, etc. on and on. The fact is, we're there, and we need to aim for the best possible victory.
Glenn Reynolds has an interesting idea. He has a quote by Neal Boortz, pointing out that he and other conservatives are still behind Bush on the war, but have aught with Bush on other issues. However, in their view, the Dems are worse. Reynolds argues that Dems should consider this, and spend less going after Bush on the war, and focus on other issues, if they want to capitalize on Republican dissatisfaction with Bush.
An interesting idea, but I think the Dems would do better if we just came up with a clear, consistent, and coherent alternative to Bush's war approach, as opposed to just criricism. A lot of the criticism is legitimate, but if the Democrats don't have a clear alternative that they can clearly put forth, we still end up looking wishy-washy.
Many conservatives are dissatisfied with the war, and only 34 percent of the country really backs Bush right now. Dems will never win the rank and file, but moderates and swing votes are up for grabs as always. The approach has to be clear though. In fact, the problem is less that the message we put out is anti-Bush, than the fact that it's not coherent.
On a sort-of side note, while I don't think the Dems should take the advice of the Michael Moore types and move to the Left, or the advice of the Zell Millers and move to the right, the problem with this whole movement thing isn't about the direction moved, but the frequency of movement.
2 comments:
"We can debate the supposed links between Saddam and al-qaeda (certainly debatable) and WMDs, etc. on and on."
That really is a laughable and sadly telling statement by the author.
Sorry but the only people still trying to put forward these issues as valid arguments for war are the ridiculously ignorant and a terminally feeble minded who continually drown themselves in right wing propaganda and convince themselves its fact.
Our current President George W. Bush is a traitorous treasonous dog who lied to the American people and took us to war without just cause. That is now a historical fact for anyone willing to look objectively at the facts, or anyone with any common sense.
That Machiavellian ends justify the means crap isn't worth commenting upon.
And only pseudo Democrats who voted for George Bush, motivated no doubt by the irrational fear Bush and his administration worked hard to create, would even for one moment entertain the possibility that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing for America.
At this very moment Osama bin Laden walks the earth a free man. Only fools and children fail to see how he and Al Qaeda continue to lead George Bush on a long leash and keep him on the dog run of war. He's their favorite trick pony.
OK. now tell me what you really think.
Post a Comment