The title of the New York Times article is "Bush Argues Democrats Don’t Understand Threat to U.S.", but from the President's remarks it seems that he doesn't understand the threat that Democrats pose to America.
President Bush seized today on Democratic calls for withdrawal from Iraq to make an election-year case that his political rivals did not properly understand the threats to the nation and would create a more dangerous world. ...In general, however, Mr. Bush struck a different tone than the vice president has used in recent weeks, including Mr. Cheney’s suggestion two weeks ago that implied that Ned Lamont’s victory in the Connecticut primary against Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut would embolden "Al Qaeda types."
In response to a question today. Mr. Bush said he agreed with that analysis, but added: "We’ll continue to speak out in a respectful way, never challenging somebody’s love for America when you criticize their strategies or their point of view."
When a person or a party consistently advocates strategies designed to weaken our country and turn over American security to pathetic "international" bodies, why shouldn't we question their patriotism? When a person or party is eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and thereby strengthen not just "al Qaeda types" but Iran, Russia, China, and all the rest, shouldn't we wonder whether they want what's best for America? When a person or party sits idly by for a decade while Americans are murdered, kidnapped, and blown up by the hundreds, isn't it legitimate to ask if they really love our country?
It's not that Democrat politicians don't understand what's at stake in the War on Terror, it's that they care less about American victory than about their own jobs. They picked the wrong horse in the political race -- most of them decades ago -- and they fear that they can't switch now without losing their seats. Sure, they know it's bad when Americans get blown up, but it's better than the alternative in which Democrat Senators and Representatives have to find work in the private sector.
No argument here.
No argument about the Dems, but the President was being gracious as usual and that's not bad. He is, after all, the one with the BIG stick.
I see inane nonsense season is back in full swing on MW's part.
MW said: "When a person or party is eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq ..."
What jaws of victory? Iraq isn't getting better. The government we crafted isn't getting more powerful or self-sufficient. And don't even talk about Iran.. because it doesn't suit your argument. Iran has been the big winner here with everything we've done and are doing in the Middle East. There are few good options for dealing with Iran, of which invasion and air strikes are not among. Both will solidify the Iranian regime and play right into their hands.
MW said: "When a person or party sits idly by for a decade while Americans are murdered, kidnapped, and blown up by the hundreds, isn't it legitimate to ask if they really love our country?"
Assuming you mean the apathy toward terrorism pre-9/11.. don't forget.. that applies to Republicans too.
On the whole, though, I welcome the questioning of my patriotism and that of others who agree with me about Iraq and the broader "war on terrorism". There's certainly no law against asking stupid questions.. and there's also no law against the questioning of the patriotism of others by those who are seriously deranged and idiotic in their reasoning. In other words, you go right ahead and question my patriotism.. and I'll question your ability to accurately judge it.
I also wanted to point out that another part of MW's Inane Nonsense season is his story about Atheists that precedes this one.
Brett, good job on that one. The only person who really responded to you was Ben Bateman.. perhaps you should've addressed what he said, but that's your business.
Mark: The problem with Democrats is that despite all their arguments, the inescapable fact is that if they were in charge Saddam Hussein would still be "President" of Iraq. The Taliban would be ruling Afghanistan, enslaving women, and beheading everyone in sight. Libya would still be pursuing WMD. Pakistan wouldn't be helping, and AQ Khan would still be spreading nuclear technology... etc etc. Leftists and Democrats have opposed every step of the War on Terror, and they've been wrong in every case. Does that mean everything is going perfectly? No, but things are going in the right direction.
MW: You're wrong. "Leftists" supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Democrats have not "opposed every step of the War on Terror". The disconnect here has always been Iraq.
The Great Distraction that was (and is) Iraq has resulted.. both directly and through a domino effect.. in a stronger Iran, a weaker Israel, and a somewhat resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Which of those facts is a good thing?
And I would hope that recent events would lead most rational people to realize that terrorism is a nation-less thing. It's not a matter of toppling dictatorships, invading countries, and nation building. It's a matter of ideology.. and ideology knows no geographical borders or traditional military/civilian/governmental arrangement. Such truths make highly dubious the efficacy of a "flypaper strategy" or a "fight them over there so they don't attack us over here" approach.
MW: You also said that things are going in the right direction. That's also wrong. The solidification of Hezbollah, the strengthening of Iran, the continually impotent "government" of Iraq, etc. are not signs that things are going in the right direction.
Much of this stems from George W. Bush's idiocy in matters that are nuanced and complex.. as foreign relations and international affairs almost always are. Bush's simplistic views of the problem and the solution stand in stark contrast to the infinitely more complicated reality.. as the lengthy (and growing) list of unintended consequences demonstrates.