Here, the writer tries to relay one good point, then quickly scuttles it with more bad stuff (it's a common management trick):
The president gets credit from a majority of Americans for being strong and decisive, but he's also seen by an overwhelming number of people as "stubborn," a perception reinforced by his refusal to yield on issues like the Iraq war, tax cuts and support for staffers under intense pressure.
"Refusal to yield on issues" is codeword for "refusal to admit he was grossly wrong in our eyes". I'm confused. Do the American people really want someone who suggests that we GIVE UP in Iraq? Or has no LOYALTY to staff if he thinks they are innocent (by the way, Libby is the only one charged and he's already resigned, making this a non-sequitur)? Or has no PRINCIPLE regards pre-election promises to make the tax cuts permanent? Sounds like those polled would rather have a breeze checker.
Bush's speech today addressed those issues. He made it clear--disagreement is the American way, but it's irresponsible to rewrite the pre-war intelligence history when everyone pretty much agreed Saddam was a threat, and had for many years. It's irresponsible to do a 180 because the war is not going well when you signed a near-unanimous resolution approving use of force and had voted regime change as formal U.S. policy.
2 comments:
and what about the millions of citizens who did not agree with war,
the youths who's future is at risk- but who had no fucking say anyway?
do we just let the president get away with lying?
do we just let the media's owners make profits off their lies, then expose them later on?
who do we punish for the bad decision then?
how do we claim back our respect, pride and patriotism?
how can we have the international community respect and trust us again?
IS THERE ANOTHER WAY?
For us to have meaningful discourse, we're going to first have to agree on exactly what contitutes the "lie".
Can you explain?
Post a Comment