Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The W, Rove And Co Doesn't Make Decisions Based On Polls, But They Read Blogs: Subtitle - Walking Away From Iraq?

Have a look at this paragraph that poses as an answer to a good question asked at the today's Whitehouse Press Breifing.

Note to some - recall, if you will, which administration has most recently walked away from catching OBL?

Another question to consider when reading this paragraph: Why does the W, Rove and Co continue to paint complex geopolitical situations with dualistic brush? Certainly, solving the global problems are going to be more difficult than suggesting that those who advocate peace are advocating walking away from the situation wholesale, no?
Q On Lieberman, are you telling us you now want to make the November election a referendum on the Democrats' position on the Iraq war?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm saying that there are some Democrats who have said that the key issue is leaving, and that there are some elements within the Democratic Party who are pushing hard to say, look, if you don't agree with us, you no longer belong in the party. You know, you take a look at the blogs today, they're pretty hot.

And the real question for the American people to ask themselves is, do you take the war on terror seriously, with all the developments going on around the world? And, if so, how do you fight it to win? There seem to be two approaches. And in the Connecticut race one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away.

Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th. And it's important to realize that terrorists are not simply inspired by American engagement in the world, but they have their own agenda and it is an agenda that if we turn around and look the other way, they're not going to ignore -- they will continue to build strength and they will continue to build adherence. And it is a vitally important debate to have.

And it's really up to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party to figure out how they want to stand in the war on terror: do they want to have the sort of timetable approach, leave by a date-certain; do they not want to have something constructive to say about gathering threats from Iran and elsewhere. Or do they want to acknowledge that fact that in a dangerous world it takes commitment, it take persistence.

Throughout American history, generation after generation has been faced with difficulties. And each generation has risen to the challenge, and we're confident that this generation will do the same.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr. Snow, the other side of the coin is not as black or bleak in contrast to your white or rosy outlook? Certainly, if you read Lamont's position on the war in Iraq, it's not a walk away stance:
While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.
So, I would suggest that to portray his position as Tony does is to be at the very least misleading, and at the very worse, a political ploy to confuse to American people as we head into November.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

If at first you don't succeed, quit!

Try, try again is for fools who've bet the house.

Political discourse is not bean bag. When you have the floor you speak for yourself and for your opponent. It's not called the bully pulpit for nothing.

The White House strategy defines the Democrats policy on Iraq as 'Cut and Run.' They define it that way because that definition suits their needs. Republicans can't campaign against Democrats 'strategic withdrawal.'

When your opponent tell lies about you it's not because they're strong, it's because they're weak.