From behind the New York Times firewall:
“I wasn’t really surprised by Republican election victories in 2002 and 2004: nations almost always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how bad the leaders and no matter how poorly conceived the war.
The question was whether the public would ever catch on. Well, to the immense relief of those who spent years trying to get the truth out, they did. Last November Americans voted overwhelmingly to bring an end to Mr. Bush’s war.
Yet the war goes on.
….
…Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding.
Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public utterly disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it’s not clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.
Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a ‘movement’ that ‘has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,’ he should be treated as a lunatic.
When Mitt Romney says that a coalition of ‘Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda’ wants to ‘bring down the West,’ he should be ridiculed for his ignorance.
And when John McCain says that Osama, who isn’t in Iraq, will ‘follow us home’ if we leave, he should be laughed at.
But they aren’t, at least not yet. And until belligerent, uninformed posturing starts being treated with the contempt it deserves, men who know nothing of the cost of war will keep sending other people’s children to graves at Arlington.”
I would be remiss if I didn’t suggest that there is a role for the traditional press here too.
Post a Comment