Conservatives passive/aggressive in talking terror
I was driving home beneath a beautiful crescent moon tonight and I was scanning the political talk channels on my Sirius satellite. The gentleman on the Left channel was going a bit overboard on his discussion of George Bush’s supposed plan to invade Pakistan. Now I do understand the fallacy of our friends and allies in this “war on terror.” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have contributed more to terrorism against the United States than any other countries in the world, but they are our supposed closest allies. The vast number of hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. The mastermind of this attack, now has what amounts of safe haven in the Waziristan area of Pakistan. But I know a full scale invasion of Pakistan would never happen in a million years, no matter how prudent a measure it may be. But he was talking about the war in Iraq, more than could be said of the right wing channels.
The right wing, which the evil liberal media has seen fit to give three channels to the left’s one, was talking about everything BUT Iraq. Herein lies my question. Why are conservatives so passionate in their defense of the war in Iraq, and call it the epic battle of our generation, while doing everything in their power to avoid talking and debating about it. On the campaign trail Rudy Guiliani does everything to say that it’s for other people to decide. It is so important yet so poisonous. The two biggest cheerleaders of this war are Bush and McCain. One is historically unpopular, and the other has seen his campaign crumble like a South American blow-dart victim. Conservatives point to the unpopularity of Harry Truman as proof that doing the right thing matters no matter the polls. But there is a huge difference between steady leadership and ignoring the overwhelming demands of the people in a democracy. Steady leadership does not spend half a trillion dollars using the greatest military in the world to fight a bunch of militia-men to a stalemate. But if this is so important for the ages, why not discuss this? Why prevent pictures of coffins if the sacrifice is pure and important? If a surge is what’s needed, why not a draft? Instead we get arguments against children’s health insurance and salacious stories of dead wrestlers and their murdered kin. Not the preeminent conflict of our times.
Related posts:
- On Pearl Harbor, and lost conservatives still following the idiot boy king
- The ever disappearing reasons for staying in Iraq
- Iran, Pakistan, and the idot boy President
- Republicans Play Politics With Terror, And Class Warefare With President’s Vacation
- Ed, and Sean and what’s important in the world.


