Eric Alterman has a typically insightful column on American Progress (
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=139401).
It concludes thusly:
"Look around you. Just where has the country acted responsibly to protect U.S. national security? In Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora and the U.S. troop commitment remains woefully inadequate. In North Korea, where a nuclear program operated by an unstable totalitarian regime continues unimpeded? In Iran, where Moslem fanatics and terrorist supporters continue their work on a weapon of their own—having helped to dupe the U.S. into a counter productive invasion of Iraq? In the meantime, as with the 9/11 commission's recommendations, the president has continually flip-flopped on every major domestic initiative since 9/11 aimed at keeping the country safe. He opposed the Department of Homeland Security before taking credit for it, while leaving it woefully underfunded. He opposed any inquiry in the 9/11 attacks, then favored them, but again, failed to properly fund their operation. He continues to ignore the most basic safeguards against terrorist threats at home and abroad while chasing rumored chemicals in the desert and emptying our national coffers for his ill-advised adventure. Despite this, his conservative counterparts continue to feed misinformation and half-truths to an eager media, who appear unwilling or unable to imagine their own narrative. And we are all less safe as a result."
There are Americans who don't necessarily agree with 90% of Bush's agenda, but are so scared by terrorism and so snowed by Bush that they think he is a better choice than Kerry to keep them safe. Obviously, they are wrong, but it is just so damn hard to get through to them. Why is that?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
