POTUS accuses American opposition party of seeking political gain by opposing POTUS
A leading democrat suggested yesterday that pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible might be a good idea. From the political climate over here, I can see that being a vote winner, but from what I saw over there, it strikes me as a definite vote loser.
The President retaliated by suggesting that this was undermining the morale of the troops out there. To my mind, the thousands of 'Support our troops' magnetic ribbons I've seen in the States are in support of the troops, not the war. Many Americans support the war too, probably a majority, but most are aware of the difference between one and the other, and have been for some time following incidents in the past where the confusion has led to reduced morale.
Dubya also said the Democrats were trying to make political gains by this. To my understanding, the role of an opposition party is to make political gains by pointing out the mistakes of the ruling party, preferably before the ruling party have made them. The role of a ruling party is to make political gain by not making the mistakes in the first place. I wish I was accused of trying to do my job more often. Perhaps if I didn't post here so much, I would be.
So, in the spirit of the Commander in Chief himself - I accuse George W Bush of trying not to make mistakes!
The President retaliated by suggesting that this was undermining the morale of the troops out there. To my mind, the thousands of 'Support our troops' magnetic ribbons I've seen in the States are in support of the troops, not the war. Many Americans support the war too, probably a majority, but most are aware of the difference between one and the other, and have been for some time following incidents in the past where the confusion has led to reduced morale.
Dubya also said the Democrats were trying to make political gains by this. To my understanding, the role of an opposition party is to make political gains by pointing out the mistakes of the ruling party, preferably before the ruling party have made them. The role of a ruling party is to make political gain by not making the mistakes in the first place. I wish I was accused of trying to do my job more often. Perhaps if I didn't post here so much, I would be.
So, in the spirit of the Commander in Chief himself - I accuse George W Bush of trying not to make mistakes!
I kow I've posted about this before, but it still gets my back up. Would Blair ever stoop so low as to suggest that the LibDems arguing the war was a bad idea was just to get more votes?
Posted by
Matt |
Fri Nov 18, 02:05:00 pm
Well, my problem is that I don't have any connection to the troops there - not a problem for you, I know. I quite openly don't support the war, but then the British public were lied to in a way that the Americans weren't. I find it difficult to say whether I support the troops - there are thousands of young Brits and Americans out there, many of whom aren't the thugs and morons that are portrayed in certain parts of the media, and none of whom had a choice about going. But when you join the army, that's what you sign up for, that's what troops are for. So if I'm to condemn the troops out there, I think I can only do it by condemning troops in general, for choosing to be soldiers, though they didn't choose where to do it.
Sadly, in the world we live in, there is still a need for armed forces, and as long as human nature means trying to get one up on your neighbour, there will always be a need for them. Whether they support the cause is their opinion, and I wouldn't say I can't support them because of that. The people who made the decision to go are the people I can't support. Once that decision has been made, a soldier is entitled to his opinion of the decision, but will have to follow orders out there regardless of it.
If you can justify a position where you would support armed conflict in one set of circumstances, but not this set of circumstances, I think you can very easily support the troops but not the war. If your gentleman was a soldier who didn't believe in the cause, and you didn't either, but he still had to go, you'd support him and write to him all the same. If he agreed with the cause and you didn't, then I think you'd still support him.
The question I should ask myself is whether I could ever see a set of circumstances where I would send an army to war, if it were my decision, and I don't think I can, so I'm probably a rather naive pacifist, and thus the wrong person to ask.
Anyone else have a feeling on this?
Posted by
Matt |
Fri Nov 18, 04:49:00 pm
You'd know better than me - I got the impression from someone in North America that the anti-war movement around Vietnam led to very low morale for the troops, and that since then people have generally shown support for the troops, whether they support the war or not? I expect this is an oversimplification, but does it have the general idea?
Posted by
Matt |
Fri Nov 18, 05:07:00 pm
You're right - the bandwagon effect is one I'm sure several charities depend upon. However, in the AIDS case, they could give money to a charity to back up their little ribbon. I'm not sure what more one can do to support the troops. Keep paying your taxes? Aside from personal relationships of course.
Posted by
Matt |
Mon Nov 21, 09:10:00 am