Pelosi : Bush comments 'beneath dignity of office'...
Hillary: 'Outrageous and offensive'...
Biden: 'Bulls*%$!'...
And from the minority leader of the Senate?
From VP Cheney?
From Fred Thompson? Giuliani?
Why is it alright for democratic leaders to say what they do, but not for the president, ANY PRESIDENT to take them to task for it?
Why does this crop of republicans TAKE IT UP THE PIPE for this abuse?
Where is their sense of what is right? Where is their duty to the national interest?
Maybe JOE LIEBERMAN who warned that undermining the credibility of a president in wartime was a dangerous thing to do, will step up and embarrass these republicans.
What do the republicans imagine the nation is eroded away to conclude week after week of this stuff?
The fact is that warning over naivety is not only proper for a president to undertake, I would think it compulsory. And if anyone on God's earth is more naive than Sen. Obama, it's J Carter.
We have already lived through Stanley Baldwin and his successor on this earth, and though they knew PRECISELY what to do to be popular and well loved, there was a price.
Finally, where is the John McCain who last week said on national TV,
Stanley Baldwin Prime Minister of Great Britain in the 1930's:
We are at a dangerous moment, and for all the weaknesses Mr. Bush has shown, what he said and did today was in the interest of the security of the people he serves.
Hillary: 'Outrageous and offensive'...
Biden: 'Bulls*%$!'...
And from the minority leader of the Senate?
From VP Cheney?
From Fred Thompson? Giuliani?
Why is it alright for democratic leaders to say what they do, but not for the president, ANY PRESIDENT to take them to task for it?
Why does this crop of republicans TAKE IT UP THE PIPE for this abuse?
Where is their sense of what is right? Where is their duty to the national interest?
Maybe JOE LIEBERMAN who warned that undermining the credibility of a president in wartime was a dangerous thing to do, will step up and embarrass these republicans.
What do the republicans imagine the nation is eroded away to conclude week after week of this stuff?
The fact is that warning over naivety is not only proper for a president to undertake, I would think it compulsory. And if anyone on God's earth is more naive than Sen. Obama, it's J Carter.
We have already lived through Stanley Baldwin and his successor on this earth, and though they knew PRECISELY what to do to be popular and well loved, there was a price.
Finally, where is the John McCain who last week said on national TV,
"I think we are in a war against Islamic extremism, and I think that war is worldwide"?
Stanley Baldwin Prime Minister of Great Britain in the 1930's:I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through, The only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves...If the conscience of the young men should ever come to feel, with regard to this one instrument [bombing] that it is evil and should go, the thing will be done; but if they do not feel like that - well, as I say, the future is in their hands. But when the next war comes, and European civilisation is wiped out, as it will be, and by no force more than that force, then do not let them lay blame on the old men. Let them remember that they, principally, or they alone, are responsible for the terrors that have fallen upon the earth.
A series of by-elections with massive swings against government candidates--most famous was Fulham East with a 26.5% swing--in late 1933 and early 1934 convinced Baldwin that the British public was profoundly pacifist. Baldwin also rejected the "belligerent" views of those like Churchill and Robert Vansittart because he believed that the Nazis were rational men who would appreciate the logic of mutual and equal deterrence. He also believed war to be "the most fearful terror and prostitution of man's knowledge that ever was known"Americans are as tired of history as it has been for 3000 years as Europe was of war in 1934, but we can do as little about the nature of history and humans beings as could Baldwin wishing against all reality that the enemies of the west were rational beings, as afraid of the bloodshed and horror as he clearly was.
We are at a dangerous moment, and for all the weaknesses Mr. Bush has shown, what he said and did today was in the interest of the security of the people he serves.
1 comment:
Excellent post, Epa.
War exists in the human soul and that is why it is a constant in the world. There is no avoiding it. The human soul is the center of the battle between good and evil. What each human being does as a result of that battle taking place within their soul is only a incarnation of the battle within.
The "real world" is merely a projection of that which plays out in our souls.
We have the knowledge of good and evil, but only the Fear of the Lord will give us the Wisdom to choose.
Religious people of the Judeo-Christian perspective can understand that the world will always be filled with evil. And so, we do not delude ourselves with the idea that war can be avoided.
It is only idealists, those Jews and Christians who prefer to call themselves "spiritual", rather than followers of the Lord God, who are able to delude themselves into believing we can achieve Utopia if we would only change the way we think.
Post a Comment