Ira Forman: "... just today, the House Rules Committee debates 'Pledge Protection' while a majority of the House voted to enshrine bigotry against gays into our Constitution.
Neither the Pledge of Allegiance nor marriage are currently threatened. After all, these bills would simply maintain the status quo. Yet each 'issue' was a priority for the House, which at this time has still not passed a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel.
When the going gets tough, the tough play to their base. Instead of determining how to best support Israel in its time of need, the House of Representatives has been debating artificial issues intended to divide Americans rather than solve real problems."
And while we're on the topic of Republicans failing to match actions to words, let me ask this: Where did we get the idea George Bush was tough on terror? It's a bit of conventional wisdom duitfuly and unreflectivly reported by the MSN, but is it true?
If you are sincerely determined to reach a goal, you do not spend the bulk of your energy and capital in pursuit of a conflicting goal — in this case, the conquest of Iraq and the accumulation of totalitarian power.
If the White House was determined to “fight” terrorism, why did we divert our superior mi litary away from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why are we refusing to adopt measures like container searches that would protect the homeland? Why are we occupying Iraq with far fewer troops than is needed to secure peace?
I could go on, but the pattern is clear: this White House is soft on terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment