Jordanian police recently arrested Sajida Mubarak al-Rishawi, 35, an Iraqi women who is possibly the scariest looking person I've ever seen in my life. She is the Iraqi who along with her husband plotted to destroy a Jordanian hotel in a suicide bombing. Her husband was successful killing mainly Jordanians at a wedding celebration. Sajida Mubarak al-Rishawi bombs failed to explode, and now she is living proof that the war in Iraq has spread terrorism, not cut it off.
However, at home Democratic Senators such as supposed Bush basher, Chuck Schumer, remain stubborn to the point of absurdity, on their defense of their vote on the war. Schumer leads the chorus of "We didn't support the war. We only voted to give the president the authority to go to war, not the war itself." And yes, that vote is different from a vote for the war. However a more powerful anti-war stance would have been a vote against giving Bush the authority. AND more to the point, the difference between voting for or against the authority to go to war has been obvious to everyone for nearly 3 years. So why stick to the useless line of reasoning about voting for the authority but against the war? To not appear as a "flip-flopper"? Bush is the ultimate "flip-flopper" on his justifications for war and it's taken years of terrible leadership for anyone to care. The "pro authority for war" democrats destroy the coherence in their party. They must admit the war was a mistake before the country can take a realistic look at the situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As someone who may have once worked for Chuck Schumer - this is information I cannot fully reveal - he would have serious difficulty coming out fully against Bush because he didn't just support giving authority. He has quite clearly supported the war from the beginning (although he prefers not to really talk about in public). That's the word on the street, for what it's worth
Post a Comment