Point: The Catch-22 of being a Republican
The Catch-22 of being a Republican
We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't.
In the debate between Howard 'Ha!' Dean and ex-Pentagon advisor Richard Pearl, good ol' Ha!ward reminded me of a time not so long ago: a time where I knew why I didn't vote Dem. A time when I stood in the middle of Copley Square, a majority stuck in a minority crowd. On that fateful November night, I stood there silently protesting against a wishy-washy Democrat (it's amazing how well a blue blazer covers a red dress), while bearing witness to his indecision when he kept the crowd waiting for 8 hours while he contemplated a public appearance (talk about the perfect anti-climactic conclusion to a mediocre campaign - What? Who said that?).
In this debate, Howard clearly voiced his objection to the US-led invasion of Iraq. The inference made here in the context of these debates is that Bush over-reacted to intelligence reports. Howard then stated that President Bush had been ignoring the reports of a mounting threat of Iran and North Korea. Well, which is it man? Is it that Bush over-reacts or under-reacts to intelligence reports? Even the Democrats will agree that Bush is a president who doesn't waver in decision.
Howard commented that the Bush administration picked "a low hanging fruit" in Iraq and ignored all else. Well, did he? Did the Bush administration really ignore Iran? Or was Bush finally trying to listen to the 'nagging child' that is the Democratic Party by trying to perhaps be more diplomatic, only further proving his point that we should not wait for the rest of the world to get on board with the measures we need to take to protect ourselves. Bush knows what's going on in Iran: they're trying to get nuclear fuel from Russia. Hmmm. Why would an Arab country want nuclear fuel? I wonder...
Bush is urging Russia to reconsider it's position, and help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Russia is saying "dey wull not make dee nuclear whey-pons be-cooz dey will giv oos back de fuel." Oh, well in that case...
Dean, and Dems, do you want Bush to sit back and wait for Iran and North Korea to fatten up their arsenal and come out, nuclear bombs a-blazing, all for the sake of diplomacy? OR, can we continue to follow the path we've carved by stopping countries like this from mobilizing before they even start? What will it be - door #1 or door #2? Kerry will definitely need to flip a coin on this one.
Might I make another suggestion to the Democratic party? While I have constantly tried to help the blue people sound more accountable by urging them not to say things like "Bush is stupid," or "Republicans are rednecks", I will once again put partisanship aside to say to the Democrats, it doesn't exactly add to the credibility of a party when you start throwing shoes to prove a point.
I mean who throws a shoe? Honestly!
tamar.
We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't.
In the debate between Howard 'Ha!' Dean and ex-Pentagon advisor Richard Pearl, good ol' Ha!ward reminded me of a time not so long ago: a time where I knew why I didn't vote Dem. A time when I stood in the middle of Copley Square, a majority stuck in a minority crowd. On that fateful November night, I stood there silently protesting against a wishy-washy Democrat (it's amazing how well a blue blazer covers a red dress), while bearing witness to his indecision when he kept the crowd waiting for 8 hours while he contemplated a public appearance (talk about the perfect anti-climactic conclusion to a mediocre campaign - What? Who said that?).
In this debate, Howard clearly voiced his objection to the US-led invasion of Iraq. The inference made here in the context of these debates is that Bush over-reacted to intelligence reports. Howard then stated that President Bush had been ignoring the reports of a mounting threat of Iran and North Korea. Well, which is it man? Is it that Bush over-reacts or under-reacts to intelligence reports? Even the Democrats will agree that Bush is a president who doesn't waver in decision.
Howard commented that the Bush administration picked "a low hanging fruit" in Iraq and ignored all else. Well, did he? Did the Bush administration really ignore Iran? Or was Bush finally trying to listen to the 'nagging child' that is the Democratic Party by trying to perhaps be more diplomatic, only further proving his point that we should not wait for the rest of the world to get on board with the measures we need to take to protect ourselves. Bush knows what's going on in Iran: they're trying to get nuclear fuel from Russia. Hmmm. Why would an Arab country want nuclear fuel? I wonder...
Bush is urging Russia to reconsider it's position, and help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Russia is saying "dey wull not make dee nuclear whey-pons be-cooz dey will giv oos back de fuel." Oh, well in that case...
Dean, and Dems, do you want Bush to sit back and wait for Iran and North Korea to fatten up their arsenal and come out, nuclear bombs a-blazing, all for the sake of diplomacy? OR, can we continue to follow the path we've carved by stopping countries like this from mobilizing before they even start? What will it be - door #1 or door #2? Kerry will definitely need to flip a coin on this one.
Might I make another suggestion to the Democratic party? While I have constantly tried to help the blue people sound more accountable by urging them not to say things like "Bush is stupid," or "Republicans are rednecks", I will once again put partisanship aside to say to the Democrats, it doesn't exactly add to the credibility of a party when you start throwing shoes to prove a point.
I mean who throws a shoe? Honestly!
tamar.
posted by paul at 2:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home