The President:
- What was said"We need to stay the course."
What was meant: We can't just up and leave. We have to do what is necessary to attain victory. We need to expediate victory to get our soldiers home. (Listen to any one of the President's speeches when he's said this and he always follows it up with something like this: "We often need to change our tactics or our method, but we cannot leave until victory has been attained.")
What it has been spun into: "Who cares how many people are dying! What difference does it make that it looks like we haven't made any progress? We're gonna keep on keeping on with what we've been doing like a foolish cowpoke riding a blind horse towards a cliff! And we're in power so y'all can just stew in yer pony's manure."
The Democrats:
- What's been said: "We can no longer afford to stay the course."
What was meant: We need to change what's been going on in Iraq. We need to alter our tactics and do what is necessary to attain victory. We need to expediate victory to get our soldiers home.
What it's been spun into: We need to retreat with out tails between our legs. We should never have gone in, we need to get out. We don't care what happens to the Iraqi people, just get our soldiers out now!
Somehow, the citizens of the United States bought the spin of the Democrats, but not the spin of the Republicans. Here's what gets me: They've been saying the exact same thing! And yet the Dems were able to sell their crap in a more convincing way than the GOP was able to sell theirs.
I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, regardless of how they feel about why we went into Iraq, believes that the best thing to do is to completely retreat and leave a vacuum of power in that volitale nation. (If you do, please enlighten me on your reasoning. I honestly am interested to hear it.)
Now the time you've all been waiting for, here is my spin. If nothing changes in Iraq, the Democrats will now shoulder the load of the failure. If they cut and run, they look like cowards and will lose power in two years. If they are unable to stem the tide of insurgents, they look just as inept as the Republicans did. And (God forbid) if we are hit again on our home soil, it's the Democrats that will have to do the explaining. If they think they can do it, more power to them. It's not the time that I'd choose to step into power.
By the way, if you voted for a non-incumbant Democrat as a protest of the war but aren't intersted in them reinstating partial birth abortions, or upping the funding to stem cell research, you better make sure you let them know. Nancy Pelosi (The new speaker of the house (and the first woman to hold that post)) has already promised that they will be pushing these issues through Congress. Don't let them pull a bait and switch on you, email you Congressperson now!
Anyway, just my opinion. Feel free to share yours.
3 comments:
Having spoken at length recently with two older individuals (you can guess which ones ;) who hold to the position we should leave Iraq -- oh, yesterday -- here's their thinking. They literally and honestly do not believe that the remaining Iraqi's would rise up against us. They actually have bought into the notion that we have destroyed their land and that they should be left to build it back up on their own. They are particularly irritated by our government giving a hand-out to Iraq for rebuilding but asking New Orleans to repay a government loan. They feel we should have attacked Saudi Arabia because they were the ones who actually harbored a number of the the 9-11 terrorists, and that we didn't because of oil. They feel this entire war was a vendetta designed by Cheney and Bush in retaliation for threats against Bush's family. They actually think we should leave the country as it is and we will be fine.
In short, I commented that they were betting our lives on this notion. I commented that if they were wrong and the democrats they voted for do what they suggest and another attack happens on oursoil, do they really think that saying, oops I guess we were wrong is a sufficient apology to the families of those who lose their lives because of their error in judgement. I commented that they are putting an amazing amount of faith in the idea that Cheney and Bush are such talented madmen and master-minds that they would be able to dupe all of the people necessary to start this war simply for a vendetta.
So, if you're wondering how the other half think -- just picture the proverbial "head in the sand" image.
Now the time you've all been waiting for, here is my spin. If nothing changes in Iraq, the Democrats will now shoulder the load of the failure. If they cut and run, they look like cowards and will lose power in two years
How will you blame the democrats for this when the commander-in-chief of our armed forces is the very same man who pushed to get us there to begin with? Remember the Republicans have been in control of the senate, house and the executive branch of gov't since January of 2003.
The logical implications of what you are saying is that Congress will somehow be able to usurp control from the commander-in-chief, the head of the executive branch of gov't and the leader of our armed forces, by which you will then blame them for it?
Marc this sounds horrible biased to the tune of Repulicans = good, Democrats = bad.
. . . and how on earth are we to logically conclude the the democrats will be at fault if there is another terrorist attack (based upon the who "cut and run" option)? Do they control the department of homeland security? No. Does a democrat hold the post of Secretary of defense? No.
Again, this looks like the ol' Republicans -> always good
Democrats -> always bad.
Post a Comment