Byron York Points Out The Obvious
Byron York points out, quite correctly, that there is literally nothing whatsoever that the President could have done that would not bring criticism from Democrats in an election year. Nature of the beast and all that.
Ask yourself this question: What actions, or series of actions, could President Bush and GOP leaders in Congress have taken in the war on terror that would cause Democratic leaders to say, seven weeks before mid-term elections, “We are all united in a common effort to defeat the enemy. President Bush and Republicans in the House and Senate have brought us together like never before. We see no need to change leadership.”
Can you argue, with a straight face, that there is there any set of circumstances imaginable today, five years after September 11, that would lead to such a statement?
I didn’t think so.
So why do so many people accuse George W. Bush of “politicizing” the war on terror? That war is just the biggest issue facing the United States today, and has been for five years. How could it not be — how should it not be — an issue for intense debate by, well, politicians?
….
But now, Democrats say, we are bogged down in a giant distraction in Iraq. We should have kept our focus on Afghanistan.
But imagine this.
Imagine that George W. Bush had remained focused like a laser beam on the war in Afghanistan.
Not content with toppling the Taliban, he sent 130,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan in a determined effort to kill or capture every single member of al Qaeda.
He accomplished much, but Osama bin Laden remained in hiding, somewhere in the world’s most inhospitable territory in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Meanwhile, resentment against the American presence built.
An insurgency rose up, using improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers to kill U.S. soldiers. The American death toll mounted.
Now, do you believe that, if that had happened, Democrats would still be supporting the president’s policy in Afghanistan?
To imagine that Reid and Pelosi would not be attacking politically given that scenario is pretty silly. What does bother me is the intensity and the level of sheer vitriol that is accompanying this election cycle. This is not a good time to make attacks this nasty when we are facing coordinated problems in so many areas at once.
To imagine that Reid and Pelosi would not be attacking politically given that scenario is pretty silly. What does bother me is the intensity and the level of sheer vitriol that is accompanying this election cycle. This is not a good time to make attacks this nasty when we are facing coordinated problems in so many areas at once.
Other Links to this Post
-
Don Singleton — Thursday, 14 September , 2006 @ 7:25 pm
By Guy, Thursday, 14 September , 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Gaius, the thing that bothers me is that the dems whine incessantly about the fact that they are accused of not being patriotic. In an election cycle, when the nation is at war and so much is at stake, criticism that rises to the levels that the dems have produced *is* unpatriotic. Yet, many of our fellow conservatives, in a misguided attempt to “get along”, allow the dems to get away with their sniveling.
It is oh, so sad that the congressional dems’ (as well as, the left in general) hatred of Bush is so deep that they allow it to negatively influence policy decisions that are ultimately harmful to the security and safety of our nation. Just some random thoughts….