« Barks and crafts | Main | Not a good idea »
January 26, 2007
21 reasons for war (or 20 reasons other than WMD)
This graphic shows who supported each of the 21 reasons put forth by the Bush Administration for going to war against Iraq. Click on it to see a larger version.
It may be surprising -- or disappointing -- to those infected with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) to note that Colin Powell, Joe Lieberman, Tom Daschle (remember him?) and the Media's favorite Republican, John McCain, supported many of the stated rationales.
I note also that three times during Pres. Bush's state of the union address, the Democrats refused to applaud and stand when he called for non-partisan goals: victory in Iraq; avoiding defeat; and seeking to vanquish the forces of terrorism.
He didn't call for unwavering support for himself, nor for his policies, but for victory.
He called on our Congress to applaud for the idea that our troops should fight to win, that America should prevail.
And the Dems sat on their hands.
Yeah, they support the troops.
They just don't want them to come home victorious.
Lest you accuse me of indulging in mindless cheerleading for the Commander in Chief, let me say this:
I'm disappointed in Pres. Bush's failure as a leader, inasmuch as it's his job to explain to the nation -- over and over and over, if necessary -- why the task before us is worth sending our troops into battle.
He has not done so, and I believe this goes all the way back to the days after September 11, when he told the American People that they must go about their business, working, shopping, living life as they did before the attacks, because to change the way we live would be handing our enemies a tremendous victory.
Poppycock.
Pres. Roosevelt did not counsel Americans in the days after Pearl Harbor to act as though it was December 6th; he spoke of total war, of mobilizing all sectors of society in the pursuit of victory, and victory was the drumbeat for years.
Americans were called upon to sacrifice, not through soak-the-rich tax hikes, but war bond drives, to voluntarily invest in our nation, and in rationing of everyday items, to provide more materiel to the war effort.
Is it any wonder that to so many Americans, the war in Iraq is an annoyance?
A friend e-mailed me a story, expressing his disappointment in the conduct of the war, and his growing doubts about the possibility of victory -- and his growing doubts about Pres. Bush's leadership.
I agreed with much of what he said, and forwarded to him this comment from National Review's The Corner, their blog.
"I understand that to you and many other Cornerites, Webb bombed last night and sounded bitter. But let me tell you something: he was a huge hit in my extended lower-middle-class Los Angeles-based family. We ignore the Jacksonians at our peril. They have turned against the war something fierce.
"A lot of people think the American people turned against the Vietnam War due to all the student movement and the protests. Nope, not even close. The ordinary, middle-class Americans turned against it when it was clear that overwhelming force would not be used purely for political reasons. Not seeing any will to win the only way a war can be won, they wanted out. Same deal here, same result.
"Webb's threat is very real. Forget the 'surge'. It may happen, but it's happening in a political vacuum. If the President doesn't get us out of Iraq by year's end, the electorate will go searching for whoever will."
I agree with the sentiments of the writer, but, inasmuch as the Democrats aren't offering any solutions, I've nowhere else to go.
Yet.
Graphic from Foreign Policy.
Posted by Mike Lief at January 26, 2007 07:47 AM
| TrackBack