Bush: Don't Use Iraq in 2006 Campaigns
It's amazing how Bush takes an element of truth--that we should make an honest analysis of the prosecution of the war--and then completely disregards his own one-sided, manipulative rhetoric on the war while rejecting any merit for arguing the cause and method of invasion. The connections between political debate and troop morale creates a link between opposition to the war and lack of support for our troops.
Excerpt from Whitehouse transcript:
We face an added challenge in the months ahead: The campaign season will soon be upon us -- and that means our nation must carry on this war in an election year. There is a vigorous debate about the war in Iraq today, and we should not fear the debate. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even in times of war. Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas.
The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. And we have a responsibility to our men and women in uniform -- who deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days and in bad days -- and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory. (Applause.)
We also have an opportunity this year to show the Iraqi people what responsible debate in a democracy looks like. In a free society, there is only one check on political speech -- and that's the judgment of the people. So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.
Support for the mission in Iraq should not be a partisan matter...
posted by The Decider @ 9:39 AM
7 Comments:
I find paragraphs 2, 3 and the last statement to be particulary disturbing. Healthy debate cannot be put aside in exchange for supporting the troops. In fact the two have nothing to do with one another.
If anything, critics have suggested that more troops were needed, and the extent of the mission was underestimated, putting American troops in greater jeopardy than necessary, and this cannot be construed as the argument of someone who doesn't particularly care for the trooops.
I find that entire sequence to be disingenuous, because it is clear he is trying to quell debate on the war under the aegis of this catchall of supporting the troops. Attempt to temper public debate on a issue so central to our foreign policy is undemocratic and unamerican. Equating a health dose of public scrutiny, debate and analysis with comforting the enemy, borders on facism.
Kudos to those sufficently engaged in the issue to question and analyze the run-up, execution and aftermath of the war in Iraq.
I haven't seen a better example of talking out of both sides of the mouth at the same time. "To debate war--even during an election year--is what makes America America....just don't question or debate our motives and execution, because that's unamerican."
I'm used to hot garbage coming out of Bush's mouth, so the fact that there's more of it here isn't surprising--I'm just offended that the White House would compose a statement like that thinking I'm too stupid to understand the actual words. I'm so tired of that.
-JB
You guys are both right on. What disturbed me most was equating debate--"partisan" or otherwise--with comforting the enemy in the context of an election. This message was tried during the Cheney-Edwards debates by Cheney, but the ultra-proactive framing here is REALLY troubling. Many people may interpret this as an attempt to reset parameters for campaigning by implying partisan opposition to the war is akin to treason. As a Iraq War dissenter, I find the tone threatening and scary. And I agree with the notion of tying dissent to troop support is ridiculous and un-American. I'm glad I'm not alone here.
JB,
I share your frustration. I think they write speeches like this to target those who may be more easily confused by the false connection of opposition to the war and troop morale. According to polls, many people are.
Today in TWP, a staff writer reported on a Bush town-hall style meeting where he took unscripted, unscreened questions, including on Iraq. He defended the domestic spying, but insisted that it may reveal details to the enemy. He also repeats his claim that criticism of the war may negatively impact morale of the troops.
The article also quotes the first two coherent comments from Democrats on both issues I've heard in a long time. First, Dean, who is not a lawyer, warns that anything culled from domestic spying may be inadmissable if terrorists are prosecuted. It's the first time an coherent argument against Bush's method but in favor of combatting terrorism.
Also, Harry Reid said that the President is using the troops as a shield for legitimate criticism.
I would also suggest the following for debate: replace FISA with an intelligence surveillance court, that doesn't require demonstration of foreign ageny, replaces military prerogative w/ national security and requires 30 day review for all authorized surveillance. Increases scope of surveillance, includes judicial review and restricts the extent of surveillance allowed.
You've hit on something that I've noticed too. The Democrats have refused to take a solid, consistent stance on the spying issue or on Bush's recent speeches about the war and campaigning, other than smatterings from Sen. Kennedy, Howard Dean, and a few others readily tagged as far left liberals. They should be screaming bloody murder about Bush's rhetoric. This is unacceptable but they're treating it like it's just another Bush trick.
MMT:
How does your proposed court handle the issue of standard of proof? See new topic...
Post a Comment
<< Home