No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.
-- George Washington
Where exactly does the Deseret News get the idea that anyone (possibly excepting the Anti-Gay wackos of the Westover Baptist Church) "burned soldiers in effigy at protest rallies"?
The vast majority of those who have protested the Iraq war do so because they care deeply for the young men and women of this nation who have volunteered to serve their country and they don't want to see them killed and maimed unnecessarily.
And now, after playing on this mood for a couple years, our president gives a speech about Iraq that is nothing if not downright cheerful about its prospects. It represents a massive change in rhetoric.
Well, I won't defend Obama's optimism about Iraq or his policy toward it and Afghanistan. I also don't see that there is necessarily any connection between vandalism and the peace movement.
On the other hand, there are nationally televised personalities who are claiming President Obama is a socialist and he must be stopped and if his policies are enacted it will be the end of the republic. We then have deranged individuals murdering people in Unitarian churches to strike back against the liberals. Should we consider these people as typical conservatives? I don't think so.
Maybe instead of attacking one another ever more vehemently, we should start reasoning and working together to rescue this nation from the economic morass in which we find ourselves.
That's the point of the post. Now that he's president he suddenly has a rosy outlook for Iraq. He and his followers railed vehemently about president Bush and Iraq for years - and now that he's president it all stops.
After half a decade of partisan sniping over Iraq, among other things, only to change course once in office, it's awfully hypocritical to be calling for an end to the attacks once your side takes power.
I agree about Obama changing course, but I see it a bit differently. Obama won largely because he had the anti-war vote sewn up because of his early opposition to the war and his call for an end to the war as soon as possible.
Now that he's in office, we see that his withdrawal plan leaves some 50,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq. I simply don't see how you can claim to withdraw when you leave an army of occupation and several huge military bases there.
He campaigned on switching the fight to Afghanistan, a promise he seems ready to keep even though there is no real scenario that one could claim as a "victory", nor is there any strategy to achieve anything worthwhile, and the risk of de-stabilizing a nuclear-armed Pakistan is very real. This is one campaign promise he should have reneged on.
What I don't hear from any politician of either party is a new vision of America's place in the world and a strategy to achieve that place in spite of our economic ills and our diminished clout overseas.
6 comments:
Where exactly does the Deseret News get the idea that anyone (possibly excepting the Anti-Gay wackos of the Westover Baptist Church) "burned soldiers in effigy at protest rallies"?
The vast majority of those who have protested the Iraq war do so because they care deeply for the young men and women of this nation who have volunteered to serve their country and they don't want to see them killed and maimed unnecessarily.
So there was one incident in one march where a few anarchists did this. That's hardly indicative of the mood of anti-war protesters.
More examples of mood:
Idaho
Texas
Illinois
Indiana
Texas
Washington DC
New York
etc.
And now, after playing on this mood for a couple years, our president gives a speech about Iraq that is nothing if not downright cheerful about its prospects. It represents a massive change in rhetoric.
Well, I won't defend Obama's optimism about Iraq or his policy toward it and Afghanistan. I also don't see that there is necessarily any connection between vandalism and the peace movement.
On the other hand, there are nationally televised personalities who are claiming President Obama is a socialist and he must be stopped and if his policies are enacted it will be the end of the republic. We then have deranged individuals murdering people in Unitarian churches to strike back against the liberals. Should we consider these people as typical conservatives? I don't think so.
Maybe instead of attacking one another ever more vehemently, we should start reasoning and working together to rescue this nation from the economic morass in which we find ourselves.
You won't defend...
That's the point of the post. Now that he's president he suddenly has a rosy outlook for Iraq. He and his followers railed vehemently about president Bush and Iraq for years - and now that he's president it all stops.
After half a decade of partisan sniping over Iraq, among other things, only to change course once in office, it's awfully hypocritical to be calling for an end to the attacks once your side takes power.
I agree about Obama changing course, but I see it a bit differently. Obama won largely because he had the anti-war vote sewn up because of his early opposition to the war and his call for an end to the war as soon as possible.
Now that he's in office, we see that his withdrawal plan leaves some 50,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq. I simply don't see how you can claim to withdraw when you leave an army of occupation and several huge military bases there.
He campaigned on switching the fight to Afghanistan, a promise he seems ready to keep even though there is no real scenario that one could claim as a "victory", nor is there any strategy to achieve anything worthwhile, and the risk of de-stabilizing a nuclear-armed Pakistan is very real. This is one campaign promise he should have reneged on.
What I don't hear from any politician of either party is a new vision of America's place in the world and a strategy to achieve that place in spite of our economic ills and our diminished clout overseas.
Post a Comment