Scratch what a neocon says, and we often find the exact opposite of the truth. They dodge the draft or shirk their service, then attack war heroes of the other party. They dont give the troops enough armor, helmets and bandages then say they always listen to the commanders. They try to cut airport screeners for liquid bombs, then tell us not to drink the bottled water
The President takes the cake for his campaign press conference yesterday, misuing the White House podium for a partisan politcal speech.
4 comments:
I suppose I agree with all the criticisms here. Despite Nadir's repeated descriptions of me "drinking the neocon KoolAid", parrotting talking points, etc., I have always recognized the following:
- Bushy, Cheney, Rummie, and Wolfie are all draft dodgers...
- ...who adamantly enforce rules to drag reservists into combat, and to extend combat for soldiers who think they've fulfilled their obligation...
- ...and they've failed to support the troops with adaquate armor and with appropriate salaries, death benefits, and medical and other support at home.
- The Bushies advocate low govt spending, but they pass huge budget increases.
- The Homeland Security and Patriot Acts are mostly hogwash that violate small govt principles that they supposedly advocate.
But you still have that glass in your hand, hoping the neocons will what? Add more sugar? Maybe a little rum?
Nadir: I think you're torturing your "drink the Kool-Aid" analogy, rather than properly discarding it in light of the facts. I clearly do not unthinkingly and uncritically embrace all of Bush's proposals and actions. I oppose many of them outright (increased fedl spending, the 911 legislation, Harriet Myers nomination, failure to take personal charge of Katrina and recognize it as national crisis as quickly as did most of the nation), and some important ones that I support, I do so with clearly and often-stated reservations, including an open mind to the possibility that they are exactly wrong (Iraq invasion).
Thus I think that I qualify as a critical, independant, and qualified supporter of Bush.
And I hardly think that you could call it "cutting and running" the way that Bush handled Tora Bora. Surely in retrospect you can say that the US leaders there made a poor choice, though without hindsight I don't think that their choice was obviously incorrect.
But I also think that the Bush war supporters are incorrect in calling the Nadir/Buchannon position "cutting and running". If the president makes a bad choice for war, as Nadir and Buchannon believe, this should not obligate the nation to stick with that choice forever. The US Out Now! option advocated by Nadir may prove itself, and I would support giving it a try, should advocates of it gain the presidency or a majority in congress.
Post a Comment