Make your selection: President Bush needlessly took us into an unwinnable war in Iraq based on false intelligence, which he later hyped as trustworthy, leading to the deaths (as of Sept. 8) of 2,656 service members and the maiming of many thousands more; or, President Clinton was so preoccupied with his groin, politics and legacy that it prevented him from adequately responding to the growing terrorist challenge on his watch, leading to the slaughter of nearly 3,000 Americans five years ago.Two points - there is obviously a difference between saying that Bush knew Saddam was no threat and fixing the information so we would invade anyway and saying that Bush believed Saddam was a threat and so ignored or minimized any conflicting information. But both courses show a lack of judgement.
. . . Neither position is completely credible, yet there are people on both sides who embrace these beliefs. That is because the object of modern politics is not to say and do things that benefit the country and promote the general welfare but to gain or maintain political power. Gaining power, including the means to getting it, is all that matters.
Secondly, if the Republicans give up Clinton Bashing (which seems unlikely) they are really giving up very little. That may change in 2008 (if Hilary runs for President) but for right now, their Clinton Bashing gives them very little. Bush criticisms on the other hand are crucial to winning back power, because we have to convince people that the people who are in power right now shouldn't be. Simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment