I'm only 28, so forgive me if I am naive, but when did having the opposition's response become necessary after a Presidential Address? Has it always been this way? I know its been going on for a while, but when did it start and why? Does the idea of "equal time" really apply to the President addressing the nation? Is it really an important practice when the Commander-in-Chief is speaking during a time of war?
I'm tired of watching people placing more importance on politics at the expense of patriotism. Yes, I am calling the need to have an opposition response after a Presidential Address unpatriotic. The President articulated a clear plan of reducing our troop deployments gradually over a specific period of time, having commanders give a report to Congress again in March, and making necessary transitions from troops in everyday security missions to playing advisory and counter-terrorism roles. The President presented a plan and gave a time driven reduction in our troops. He also gave us a new deadline to expect additional progress. That should make the left happy. But it doesn't. Instead the Democratic Response was full of attacks on the President and a litany of talking-points designed to undermine his message and question any plan.
The opposition continues to be more about hatred towards Bush, obstructionism to Administration policies, and the priority of political gain in exchange for national security. The opposition response was blatantly political and intellectually dishonest.
God help us if this is the path our country is going to continue upon. God help us when we can't stop trying to score political points when lives are at stake. I hope one day we can rise above this pettiness and find a way to place our love of country over our desire for political gain. God help us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Is it really an important practice when the Commander-in-Chief is speaking during a time of war?"
All the more reason for the Democratic party (or whoever) to respond. The mentality that "he's our president and we need to support him during wartime" is a poor argument. The only reason the current policy hasn't done more damage in Iraq than it already has is because of informed criticism (which, granted, doesn't include folks like MoveOn or CODEPINK who actually are hurting America's objectives in Iraq).
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." -Edward R. Murrow
Dissent is important, but not for the sake of having dissent. A purely political attack following a war speech is not the way to handle disagreements amoung men. The powers-that-be know that. Otherwise, the response would not be a canned set of talking points that had no factual basis on what the President actually said.
You want to disagree with the tactics, fine. But base the disagreements in reality and do it in a respectful manner. The troops are there. There is no point in questioning their past job or the President's past judgment after his address on national television. That serves no useful purpose. We are already there. Save the debates for historians and liberal college professors.
Instead, those that disagree with the Administration should do so in a constructive way that does not undermine his authority, our the morale of the troops and the nation. True patriots would deal with the hand we currently hold, and find whatever means necessary to bite their tongue in regards to dislike of the President and find ways to support the mission of the troops to get them home quicker. The faster things progress, the faster they can come home.
There is no point in questioning the mission now. We are already there. It was approved by the electorate in Bush's re-election, and by Congress. Its no time to play Monday morning quarterback and second that decision. All we have left is to finish what we started.
Post a Comment