![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumFeh!
You think I'd learn, get cynical or just stop caring, but nope.
"The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush's campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: "Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power," he says after the screen flashes the words, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."
With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words "Strong and Principled Leadership" before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush's military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others," then urges viewers to tell Congress "to support the president's policy of pre-emptive self defense."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/politics/campaigns/21REPU.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Never mind that I can't think of anyone (in the arena of national politics) has been criticizing him for attacking terrorists. Iraq, sure, but the rationales for that one are a trifle pale these days (not that any administration which initiated this sort of thing could afford to admit it).
The immediate threat to the U.S.? Seems to have been a misunderstanding... everyone (save the intel-guys I know) THOUGHT they had some WMD, and if they had them, well Hussein might have used them on us, right?
They've had to admit Iraq never had anything to do with the WTC attacks (mind you, there are people who have yet to apologise to me for saying Mohammed Atta was never in Prague, talking to Iraqis, but I digress).
On the other hand Bush fils made a comparative statement in London last week where the WTC attacks and the war on Iraq were conflated again.
This is, of course, not the work of the White House, it is the Party, but listen to what they have to say on the matter, "It's fine to say Iraq's wrong, Afghanistan's wrong," Mr. Dyke said. "But what we're talking about is the safety of the American people and who's putting forth the policies to address it."
Yep, you can say the policies are wrong, but to imply (or state flat-out) that the people who implemented these policies are fat-headed idiots, that's beyond the pale.
I expect to see a lot of, "don't change horses in mid-stream," (if I were more paranoid I point out that Goebbels said having an external enemy, and a constant state of war was a good way to stay in power, but I don't think we are quite there, but Jefferson was right, the price of Freedom is eternal vigilance) but when the horse is a broken down, hard-mouthed nag who insists on heading for the roughest part of the river... a new horse is in order.
Pointing out that the horse is going astray is not wrong.
You think I'd learn, get cynical or just stop caring, but nope.
"The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush's campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: "Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power," he says after the screen flashes the words, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."
With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words "Strong and Principled Leadership" before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush's military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others," then urges viewers to tell Congress "to support the president's policy of pre-emptive self defense."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/politics/campaigns/21REPU.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Never mind that I can't think of anyone (in the arena of national politics) has been criticizing him for attacking terrorists. Iraq, sure, but the rationales for that one are a trifle pale these days (not that any administration which initiated this sort of thing could afford to admit it).
The immediate threat to the U.S.? Seems to have been a misunderstanding... everyone (save the intel-guys I know) THOUGHT they had some WMD, and if they had them, well Hussein might have used them on us, right?
They've had to admit Iraq never had anything to do with the WTC attacks (mind you, there are people who have yet to apologise to me for saying Mohammed Atta was never in Prague, talking to Iraqis, but I digress).
On the other hand Bush fils made a comparative statement in London last week where the WTC attacks and the war on Iraq were conflated again.
This is, of course, not the work of the White House, it is the Party, but listen to what they have to say on the matter, "It's fine to say Iraq's wrong, Afghanistan's wrong," Mr. Dyke said. "But what we're talking about is the safety of the American people and who's putting forth the policies to address it."
Yep, you can say the policies are wrong, but to imply (or state flat-out) that the people who implemented these policies are fat-headed idiots, that's beyond the pale.
I expect to see a lot of, "don't change horses in mid-stream," (if I were more paranoid I point out that Goebbels said having an external enemy, and a constant state of war was a good way to stay in power, but I don't think we are quite there, but Jefferson was right, the price of Freedom is eternal vigilance) but when the horse is a broken down, hard-mouthed nag who insists on heading for the roughest part of the river... a new horse is in order.
Pointing out that the horse is going astray is not wrong.
