Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guy44
harms - why is it OK for Bush to score cheap political points, because everything the President does is political, but not for Democrats? Everything Kerry does is political, as well.
And why not make the Mission Accomplished thing a metaphor for this administration? It really is. They didn't care about the reality of the situation, engaging in a war for personal or ideological reasons on the basis of lies, and then bragged about how tought they were. In fact, that is Bush's campaign message. I'm tough on terror, dammit, I'm so goddam tough. Ignore everything that has actually happened, pretend nothing bad is going on, and vote for me.
Mission Accomplished isn't as bad as the actually terrible policies he has had, but it is an apt metaphor for Bush's incompetence and uber-massive failures.
|
I never said it was ok. I said it was "overboard" and "over the top" for him to be "overconfident and prematurely congratulating." I bluntly stated "I do not support it." Exactly where do you get the impression that I said it was okay? Likewise, I resent the Democrats feeling entitled to score cheap political points just because Bush did. It is not acceptable in either case.
If you're trying to paint me into some ideological box of pro-Bush or anti-Bush, you'll likely end up frustrated. I am neither. What I am is willing to consider that he falls somewhere between an "all-American terror-fighting superhero" and a "liar, cowboy, AWOL, smirk-chimp."
In this particular case, I see no problem with congratulating returning troops on a job well done, but do have some objections about the manner in which it was done. However, their particular mission was accomplished and no amount of hindsight will change that. Knowing what we know now still doesn't change the fact that the initial invasion and occupation went pretty well. I do not blur the distinction between the pre-speech and post-speech operations. I am quite comfortable with congratulating Bush on the former and admonishing him on the latter.