or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| W 2001 v. W 2005 |
Choux |
11/15/05 |
Cut and Paste article by Byron Williams on Huffington Post Blog::::
"Veterans Day is the day set aside to commemorate former members of the armed services. Traditionally, the president goes to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier
This year, it was the vice president, and not he commander-in-chief, that participated at the Veterans Day ceremonies.
It seems the president was preoccupied with other matters.
Mr. Bush was in full campaign mode, complete with matching game face. Only this time the president was not campaigning for reelection, but for something more formidable than the challenges presented by Al Gore or John Kerry: his credibility.
The president finds himself locked in an epic struggle against himself; or perhaps more precise the version of himself, who 48 months ago had an 87 percent approval rating.
In this W 2005 v. W 2001 one discovers some very stark differences. W 2001 was trusted, W 2005 is not. W 2001 had the support of the world, W 2005 does not. W 2001 could use conjecture to trump facts, W 2005 cannot.
In a democratic society, loss of credibility is a difficult hurdle to overcome, W 2001 had it, and W 2005 can’t find it.
It is an insult to the American people for the president to simply state: “We do not torture” when the facts clearly suggest something very different.
If indeed imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then W 2001 should be bowled over by the platitudes of W 2005---for they come right out of the Karl Rove 2001 playbook.
In his customary prefabricated production, complete with a prescreened audience, W 2005 ***accused Senate Democrats*** [LOLOLOLOL!!!] of misleading the nation about the threat from Iraq’s weapons programs.
According to the president, “These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.”
Those of you old enough to remember W 2001 no doubt recognize the aroma of this argument. It is the American people who have grave misgivings about the president’s leadership, and yet, he blames Senate Democrats.
Moreover, did I not detect what my conservative colleagues would classify as “classic Clintonian spin” in the president’s words?
The senate did not vote to send men and women to war, the 77-23 vote authorize the use of United States armed forces against Iraq, the decision to go to war was the president’s and his alone.
This strategy worked masterfully for W 2001, the nation was rocked by 9/11, so desperately needed to trust its leadership, gave the president the benefit of the doubt as he morphed preemptive war against Iraq into the overall war on terror.
These tactics are much more difficult to achieve when 65 percent of the American people disapprove of the President’s handling of Iraq and 53 percent now believe the war was not worth fighting, according the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
The recent piece in the New York Times magnifies the difference between the credibility of W 2001 and W 2005. According to the article, a laptop computer captured last year that shows that Iran is actively trying to figure out how to build a nuclear warhead. The Bush administration, however, is having trouble convincing our allies that the laptop isn't a fake.
Contrary to president’s assertions, Senate Democrats are not the reason for his troubles, it is the cumulative weight of the facts.
While the Administration headed for the stonewalling bunker—there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was the Downing Street memo, a key White House staff member has been indicted, and another former key member of State Department recently used the adjective “cabal” to describe the war planning between the vice president’s office and the Defense Department.
So far, the W 2001 approach is not working for W 2005. I wonder what “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” are doing these days?""
Question::: LOLOLOLOL..... Liars Liars, pants on fire! Right guys? |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
