Bolton and Delay
The N&O is following the Democratic Party talking points with a lot of focus on the Bolton nomination and the Tom Delay ethics issues. I wonder how much focus the paper put on UN nominations when the Democrats were in power, and I wonder how many stories the paper ran when Dem leaders in the House were accused of ethical lapses (Wright, Rostenkowski)?
Thomas Friedman is also featured in the paper today, and he does a nice job of trying to corner the Bush administration into an unwinnable position. Friedman, you will remember, was the somewhat respected writer of pop-foreign affairs books and also a proponent of an active US presence abroad to eliminate tyranny. Like many Democrats, he was left in the cold by his party when they decided they could tolerate tyranny in the form of Saddam Hussein, or rather they could not stomach the Bush administration having the courage to do something about it besides write editorials. Friedman has since adopted the Kerryesque stance of applauding the liberation of Iraq, but trying to find every possible way to criticize the administration for the execution of the liberation in order to deny Bush this well-earned victory.
Today Friedman maintains that the primary reason we have not had a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 is because the jihadists were focused on the fight on their ground. But now that we are winning that fight, they will shift their focus to the US. I'll bet you will hear this in the Dem talking points soon - not that their leadership will acknowledge Bush's victories overseas (they will credit the military, as if the military acted without presidential directive or leadership). The theme will be that because we took the fight to the terrorist's homeland, now they may bring the fight to us, and we are somehow at blame. I don't think this argument will work for the Dems, but I can hear it coming.
Thomas Friedman is also featured in the paper today, and he does a nice job of trying to corner the Bush administration into an unwinnable position. Friedman, you will remember, was the somewhat respected writer of pop-foreign affairs books and also a proponent of an active US presence abroad to eliminate tyranny. Like many Democrats, he was left in the cold by his party when they decided they could tolerate tyranny in the form of Saddam Hussein, or rather they could not stomach the Bush administration having the courage to do something about it besides write editorials. Friedman has since adopted the Kerryesque stance of applauding the liberation of Iraq, but trying to find every possible way to criticize the administration for the execution of the liberation in order to deny Bush this well-earned victory.
Today Friedman maintains that the primary reason we have not had a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 is because the jihadists were focused on the fight on their ground. But now that we are winning that fight, they will shift their focus to the US. I'll bet you will hear this in the Dem talking points soon - not that their leadership will acknowledge Bush's victories overseas (they will credit the military, as if the military acted without presidential directive or leadership). The theme will be that because we took the fight to the terrorist's homeland, now they may bring the fight to us, and we are somehow at blame. I don't think this argument will work for the Dems, but I can hear it coming.
posted by SCP at 7:08 AM
<< Home