http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/19/DDGQV3KCJO1.DTL&type=printableAn acquaintance of mine, Ted Webster, has thought of a fine bumper sticker. Goes like this: "If Dean Is Too Liberal Why Don't We All Just Shoot Ourselves?"
(snip)
(Dean) is also, of course, opposed to an unprovoked invasion of a foreign country. He is opposed to lying about the reasons for the attack. This used to be an honorable opinion. In the past, opposition to war often came from people who'd served in the previous one. That opinion was treated seriously, even when it was wrong. Franklin Roosevelt thought it was necessary to convince the American public that war against the Germans and Japanese was a good idea. His main opposition came from conservative Republican senators. Everyone understood why they did not want to get involved in a European struggle -- the horror that was World War I was less than 20 years in the past. Vietnam is almost 30 years away; you'd think we might at least entertain the notion that fighting a war half a world away is a bad idea.
(snip)
It is generally agreed that Osama bin Laden was responsible for those (9/11) attacks. Bin Laden is now almost certainly holed up in Pakistan, our wonderful ally and great good friend. In other words: The guy who actually attacked us is getting a free ride (and also helping in the effort to destabilize Afghanistan, our other client state in the region), while a guy who had nothing to do with attacking us is in custody.
So what Howard Dean said is not radical or remarkable or innovative. I mean, he's an interesting guy, and I might even find myself voting for him, but he's not Roosevelt or anything. He just hasn't signed on to the Official Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz worldview, which makes him a suspicious character indeed.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
