Mommy Party
In the last post (Patriotism, 11/29) I noted that anti-war activists insist they are supporting the troops by opposing the war and that most of these so called patriots belong to the mommy party. I appreciate the comments received thus far and will address them here.
From good friend Vic:
Hey, didn’t we protest Viet Nam and Ford pulled the troops? Hmmmmm, a mommy president I guess. I don't buy this missive.
Hmmmmm, whatever you might think to call Gerald Ford, mommy would not spring to mind. Let’s see if we can remember the Vietnam war history. It was a Democrat president who got us into the war, another Democrat who made a mess of it, but a Republican president who ended it on honorable terms (All parties to the Paris Peace Accord pledged to respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Vietnam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam.) Then in 1974 the Democrat controlled Senate, over the entreaties of President Ford, withdrew economic support for our South Vietnam allies dooming the people of that country to Communist takeover and mass murder.
John Kennedy was the last daddy president from the Democratic Party. One of the tragedies of Kennedy’s assassination was that Johnson took over the war lacking the courage to win it. The mommys captured the Democratic Party, produced presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and are threatening us with Hillary Clinton. It’s truly amazing that the first president of the modern Democratic Party was Andrew Jackson, “Old Hickory” who killed a man in a dual for insulting his wife. Today's Democrats are more nuanced.
Then there is this from an anonymous reader.
It now looks like a strong bipartisan consensus is building in Washington on two basic issues, namely: (1) Both sides now seem to accept that Bush made a huge mistake in dragging us into Iraq, and also (2) Both sides are now trying to put this immense screw-up behind us and are planning a phased withdrawal from Iraq based on some (real ?) milestones over the next couple of years.
Sorry fella, but your theory holds no water, at least within the daddy party.
In his speech at the Naval Academy today, President Bush reminded the country of the stakes in this war.
“This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory.”
The Republican side understands this and regards the Iraq war as essential to America’s security. Some Democrats (Lieberman for one) do too.
Bush also clarified the sentiment in the country about your second point.
"Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America."
The mommy party is heading for the ash heap of history unless they find some guts. The American people trust and respect leaders:
To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander-in-chief.
posted by Bill Lama at
6:32 PM
5 Comments:
I guess the first comment is why everybody is using the letters to permit comments.
Good point however.
Interesting response. I guess it depends on whether you can believe a word the President says. Unfortunately, some of what he said yesterday can be put alongside such classics as:
"Saddam had no WMD..."
"We'll get Osama, dead or alive..."
"I'm here to declare the end of major combat (mission accomplished)..."
"We'll be welcomed as liberators..."
"Heckuva job, Brownie..."
"Harriet will be a superb Supreme Court Justice..."
"We don't torture.."
When Bush speaks you seem to hear the heavenly choir. Most others hear only a lame duck saying "Quack quack".
All this from the guy who delighted in announcing that women had lower IQ's than men. Do we think there's a screw loose?
"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives?"
Editorial Page, Portland Oregonian
What makes a nation great? Is it what it consumes, or what it produces? A casual look at America’s recent spending habits leaves little doubt that our country has bought into the lie that consumption is the key to prosperity rather than wealth production.
Consider the facts on debt. U.S. household debt has soared to an all-time record of $2.25 trillion, with the average household now owing $20,000 in personal debt. Since 1990, the United States has run a cumulative trade deficit of almost $4 trillion, meaning that the United States now consumes $1.25 million per minute more in goods and services than it produces. Finally, the U.S. government’s cumulative budget deficit approaches a staggering $8 trillion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home