City of Roses
|With all due respect, Michael, I do recognize the general point you are trying to make here; that resorting to political finger-pointing domestically isn't going to do anything to defuse the threats and issues that we face in this uncertain world, and the Democrats here I agree should be using their energy more productively here to bi-laterally work together with the GOP to seek solutions to dealing with this matter at hand, rather than resort to a family feud. I agree with you there.
However, I must say I also find it curious how you haven't spoken out with an equal volume at the number of instances the Bush Administration has been doing likewise against not only the Democrats, but virtually anyone who disagrees with them on issues such as Iraq.
Three weeks after 9/11, when Bush is his special address called for bi-partisan unity in confronting the threats that face us in the war on terror, and saying, "We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.”, he is now going out on the campaign trail, almost coming close at times to suggesting that the Democrats are the real enemies of freedom, speaking out at them with a similar volume he has against the true threats facing our nation; al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Kim Jong II, etc.
Bush At Heller for Congress Reception: Reno, Nevada: October 2, 2006
Last Monday, Bush appeared at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nevada for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign, and said, "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like - it sounds like - they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again,".
Bush At Doolittle For Congress Reception: El Dorado Hills, California: October 3, 2006
Bush At Pombo For Congress Reception: Stockton, California: October 3, 2006
Last Tuesday, Bush made a couple campaign stops in California; one at the Serrano Country Club in El Dorado Hills, California for John Doolittle's re-election bid, and another at the Stockton Memorial Civic Auditorium in Stockton, California, where both times he again demonized Democrats, saying, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we‘re attacked again before we respond.”.....and at the other, "If the people of Arizona, if the people of the United States don't think we ought to be listening in on the conversations of people who could do harm to the United States, then go ahead and vote for the Democrats. If you want to make sure those on the front line of protecting you have the tools necessary to do so, you vote Republican, for the safety of the United States of America."
Bush At Renzi For Congress Breakfast: Scottsdale, Arizona: October 4, 2006
And last Wednesday, Bush appeared at the Camelsback Inn in Scottsdale, Arizona for a fundraiser breakfast for Rick Renzi, saying, "177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don‘t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.‘”, as well as again repeating, "If the people of Arizona, if the people of the United States don't think we ought to be listening in on the conversations of people who could do harm to the United States, then go ahead and vote for the Democrats. If you want to make sure those on the front line of protecting you have the tools necessary to do so, you vote Republican, for the safety of the United States of America."
As much as I am no fan of the Democratic Party like I'm not of the Republican Party, I also believe neither party would ever intentionally want to wait until we are attacked again, would actually want the terrorists to succeed, etc, and believe these are lies and slander, pure and simple. 177 Democrats, for instance, opposed the president‘s seizure of a further weakening of our Constitution and Article III of the Geneva Conventions. And despite his heated rhetoric, he can't name one Democrat who ever specifically said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.
It is rhetoric like that that makes it sound as though he was serious when he said, "Either you're with us or against us!", and it's as though it's almost borderline of him suggesting that not only the 177 Democratic representatives who challenged that vote in Congress, but anyone who disagrees with his policies on Iraq or the war on terror or anything in particular is treasonous.
It feels sometimes, somehow, that Bush only hears what he wants to hear. The fact is, no matter how much some try to attempt to re-write the history and memory of September 11th, 98% of Americans polled have said they can still remember where they were and how they first heard about the tragedy, and even half of Americans say they think about 9/11 multiple times every week, and when our nation was arguably seemingly 50/50 prior to the attacks, a genuine spirit of national unity blossomed in response to this tragedy which claimed several thousand innocent lives and broke tens of millions more American hearts nationwide. And any poll you look at following September 11th shows a unanimous majority among all parties, all labels, all demographics, etc. agreeing that we must go after those directly responsible for those attacks, and regardless of the disagreements that may come up in how we go about going after them, this unanimous spirit remains very much alive to this day.
The roller-coaster ride of this president's popularity indicates how crucially important it is to be two things; 1) someone who is strong, visionary and stays true to his word, but also 2) understanding, flexible and competent. Bush is very much the former, but lacks the latter very much I believe, and it shows just how being either extreme can backfire, where in Bush's case the reason why his popularity is in the 30's is because a majority of the American public believes he is way too stubborn, is warped up in his own bubble, his own reality, and won't even listen to many of his own generals and intelligence experts and accept their questions and criticisms toward Iraq and the war on terror, where he said last week also, "I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me,", which strikes me as codename for his state of denial Woodward has also been talking about.
The bottom line is, I do happen to agree with you very much in that the Democrats shouldn't be channeling all their energy toward Bush on the North Korea issue, as it is inconvenient and it doesn't do anyone any good here.
But I also find it curious why you haven't responded likewise to the same polarizing rhetoric this administration has been shooting at the Democrats, perhaps all his critics in general.
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"
[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (10-10-2006 06:36 PM).]