Some good questions here about the media's one-sided treatment of Democrats considering the consistent failure of Republican policy in Iraq. I love the younger child analogy! :evilgrin:
"I guess if I look back on it now, I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered." - Vice President Dick Cheney, Monday, June 19, 2006
(...)
The story in the media: Democrats are losing because they can't agree on what to do in Iraq. It's like the older siblings who are punished because they can't agree on how to clean up the younger siblings' mess. The child has puked all over the kitchen and destroyed the vases and wrapped his fat fingers around the cat's skinny neck and now the parents are home and the older children are punished and the younger child is rewarded. Why? Because the young child is consistently wrong and has no intention of fixing anything. The Democrats are in trouble because they can't agree on how to fix the mess the Republicans have made. The Republicans are rewarded for staying the course.
I am still waiting for a convincing argument to stay in Iraq. I would still like to know why we are there in the first place. Instead of criticizing the Democrats for not agreeing on how quickly to leave I would like to focus on what Republicans mean by victory. How will we know when we have won? Will it be when things are as good as they were under Saddam Hussein? Or when it's possible for a foreign journalist to report from inside the country? When women can walk safely without covering their heads? Instead of consensus among Democrats on when we should leave I would like to see a consensus among Republicans on what it means to win in Iraq, and how we will know when we have lost. By what measure we can safely say there is nothing left to do but go home.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37874/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(615 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
