I am sitting here with a bemused look on my mug and the feeling that sometimes I live in a different world than other people. I recently heard from someone who tried to make the case that Bush is responsible for the majority of the terrorism in the world today.
They make the claim that if the US hadn't gone into Iraq most of these events would not have taken place and that Bush is almost like Satan on Earth.
This type of hysteria just makes me shake my head. I am not interested in spending a ton of time reviewing every incident, but rather I'd like to point out that this strawman argument is similar to the rapist who claims that the woman is to blame for being raped, the robber is removed of blame because the victim shouldn't have left their door open etc.
There are a lot of valid criticisms that can be placed at the foot of this administration, this is not one of them.
If you don't like what is going on around you can always engage in some kind of acceptable protest that doesn't involve turning yourself into a bomb, cutting off someone'e head or murdering children.
4 comments:
It's a big planet, filled with seven billion (I think it is now) inhabitants... Certainly, there are others who are as just as much to blame (more) than President Bush.
Terrorism existed long before W's tenure. I am betting that it will exist long after.
You know... if he were to back off the extremely radical Social Policy he is trying to push, I would be singing his praises on mrmiddleamerica.com.
But, I will say this... I am a social liberal (and, no, that is not a bad thing... it is what this country was based on), but I will be voting for George W. Bush this Fall...
Sure as hell don't want John "Flip-Flop" Kerry in there... Not after his weakness displays...
Jack,
I know this isn't the right place to pose this question, but if I posted it on the one of the more relevant threads farther down, I'm not sure you'd see it. So, here goes ...
You've indicated that you don't like Kerry and you don't like Bush. So, if there was a national figure out there that you could support for the Presidency, who would it be?
The answer is that I really am not sure. I don't think of myself as having a party anymore and I have to on a case by case basis.
Bush has disappointed me on a number of fronts and Kerry just doesn't cut it, especially his accusation that the Republicans are going to try and prevent Blacks from voting.
Maybe Teddy Roosevelt.
Why is that disappointing when you have a Republican politician in Michigan stating that they need to suppress the vote in Detroit ... a town that is overwhelmingly minority and Democrat? There are other examples as well.
It's not an attractive concept but shouldn't the scorn for it be placed on the people who are trying to do it rather than the people who are raising it as an issue.
Post a Comment