Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Who Is Creating The Political " Boogyman?"

Primary documents are always good for a post or two. Tuesday is filled with fun and enjoyable questions to pose to the blogisphere when you scope out Whitehouse dot gov.

Let's start with hypocrisy. You have got to love it when, in juxtaposition, we find Tony the Snow-job doing exactly the thing he suggest is nefarious all in the same press conference. Have a look, first at what he suggest is wrong to do, in relation to the vilification of Rummy:
Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm wondering, does any one out there have examples where Republicans are equally perturbed with Rummy as the Democratic members of Congress? But I digress.

Here we see Tony step up to the plate to try and generate a political boogeyman or two of his own nary two paragraphs up from the one posted above:
There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war.
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but this is just an ill fated attempt to negatively paint those who would disagree with the means by suggesting they disagree with the ends as well. Nice trick Tony.

Might it not be okay to agree with the ends, but not the means? It seems like what Tony is saying here is that it is wrong to suggest that the scofflaws of the W, Rove and Co might be able to accomplish the same things but with in the bounds of the constitution, legal statutes, and without violating our civil liberties?

In the end, Rummy should be judged by his actions or inactions, not simply based on his words. Tony only uses the rhetoric to deflect attention from some one who could be performing sub par, no? Remember, the President did suggest that "Brownie" was "doin' a heckuva job" as well.

No comments: