Troubling Posts
26 August 2002
TROUBLING POSTS
I’m patriotic. With my patriotism comes some blind loyalty. It is troubling to see others who appear to ”throw in the towel” on our President. I believed him when he said this would be a long ordeal and a lot of it might not be an entirely ”visible” war. I also suspect he’s finding that some allies, participants and targets in this war cannot be quickly and certainly defined.
I respect a lot of what these posters have written. However, anyone who says ”voting a straight Democratic ticket” is a solution to our present situation raises questions about their own judgment.
Quick to Boycott Bush, Republicans?: Bill Quick, a smart and iconoclastic conservative-leaning libertarian (or libertarian-leaning conservative; whatever), announces that
George Bush’s disgraceful and dangerous performance, which has so far included dragging his feet on dealing effectively with Saddam Hussein, as well as hypocritically and ludicrously pretending that the loathesome terrorist nation of Saudi Arabia is an ally of ours, has effectively destroyed my confidence in the man, his administration, and his party.
Therefore, absent a drastic turnaround in the focus and actions of the Bush administration, I will register my displeasure this fall by voting a straight Democratic ticket at the national level, and I urge others to register their protest in any similar way that will result in a clear message being sent to our leaders: If you fail in your sworn duty to defend the US constitution and, implicitly, the American people from obvious threats like Saddam Hussein and the Islamofascist Saudi regime, you will be thrown out of power and out of office.
Meanwhile, Layne declares the warmongering toward Iraq a scam, and pronounces:
Bush has failed. His moderate-conservative ideas die in the Arabian sun, because he belongs to the Saudis. On Tuesday, Bush is meeting the Saudi ambassador in Crawford. He is in deep over his head. I would never accuse Bush of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks or faking his mourning over the deaths of so many people. But his ”with us or against us” rhetoric is horribly hollow. He wants to stop the evil enemy? Then why is the evil enemy spending the night at the Texas White House? [Matt Welch’s Warblog]
Filed under: